2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-014-0733-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance of Recalibrated Equations for the Estimation of Daily Reference Evapotranspiration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
7
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The performance of MLP and GFF models with accuracy over 90 % for all the periods and R 2 higher than 0.84 were better LR and PNN models. The MAE ranged 0.588-0.840 mm day −1 , and R 2 ranged from 0.60 to 0.82, which were both lower than R 2 of some previous studies (e. g. Traore et al 2010), while they still fall in the range of most studies (R 2 ranged from 0.6043 to 0.9995 in Kisi and Zounemat-Kermani (2014), 0.391 to 0.990 in Mallikarjuna et al (2014). The reason was that only Tmin and Tmax were used as inputs in this work, while some other weather variables, such as solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity were also included as inputs in previous studies.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The performance of MLP and GFF models with accuracy over 90 % for all the periods and R 2 higher than 0.84 were better LR and PNN models. The MAE ranged 0.588-0.840 mm day −1 , and R 2 ranged from 0.60 to 0.82, which were both lower than R 2 of some previous studies (e. g. Traore et al 2010), while they still fall in the range of most studies (R 2 ranged from 0.6043 to 0.9995 in Kisi and Zounemat-Kermani (2014), 0.391 to 0.990 in Mallikarjuna et al (2014). The reason was that only Tmin and Tmax were used as inputs in this work, while some other weather variables, such as solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity were also included as inputs in previous studies.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 56%
“…where x i is the temperature forecast or estimated/forecasted ET o ; y i is the observed temperature or calculated ET 0 ; i is the forecast sample sequence number; i=1,2,…n, x is the average forecast value of the sample sequence number; y is the average calculated value of the sample sequence number; and n is the sample number of the forecast value (Mallikarjuna et al 2014;Kisi and Zounemat-Kermani 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where ET 0 is reference evapotranspiration (mm day À1 ), R n net radiation at the crop surface (MJ m À2 day À1 ), G soil heat flux density (MJ m À2 day À1 ), T mean daily air temperature at 2 m height (°C), u 2 wind speed at 2 m height (m s À1 ), e s saturation vapour pressure (kPa), e a actual vapour pressure (kPa), (e s À e a ) saturation vapour pressure deficit (kPa), D slope vapour pressure curve (kPa°C À1 ), Ç psychrometric constant (kPa°C À1 ) (Mallikarjuna et al, 2014).…”
Section: The Fao Penman-monteith Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ET 0 was calculated using the FPM equation (Allen et al, ), which is applicable to various regions of the world such as America (Tsanis et al, ; Exner‐Kittridge and Rains, ), Europe (Fermor et al, ; Gavin and Agnew, ), Africa (Schumacher et al, ; Farg et al, ), Asia (Mallikarjuna et al, ; Valipour, ) and Oceania (Chiew et al, ; Ortega‐Farias et al, ). The FPM specifies hypothetical reference values for plant height (0.12 m), fixed surface resistance (70 s m −1 ) and albedo (0.23): normalEnormalT0=0.408Δ()RnG+γ900T+273u2()eseaΔ+γ·()1+0.34u2 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%