期刊文献+

Evaluation of alternative methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration 被引量:3

Evaluation of alternative methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Evapotranspiration is an important component in water-balance and irrigation scheduling models. While the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method has become the de facto standard for estimating reference evapotranspiration (ETo), it is a complex method requiring several weather parameters. Required weather data are oftentimes unavailable, and alternative methods must be used. Three alternative ETo methods, the FAO-56 Reduced Set, Hargreaves, and Turc methods, were evaluated for use in Mississippi, a humid region of the USA, using only measurements of air temperature. The Turc equation, developed for use with measured temperature and solar radiation, was tested with estimated radiation and found to provide better estimates of FAO-56 ETo than the other methods. Mean bias errors of 0.75, 0.28, and -0.19 mm, mean absolute errors of 0.92, 0.68, and 0.62 mm, and percent errors of 22.5%, 8.5%, and -5.7% were found for daily estimates for the FAO-56 Reduced Set, Hargreaves, and Turc methods, respectively. Evapotranspiration is an important component in water-balance and irrigation scheduling models. While the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method has become the de facto standard for estimating reference evapotranspiration (ETo), it is a complex method requiring several weather parameters. Required weather data are oftentimes unavailable, and alternative methods must be used. Three alternative ETo methods, the FAO-56 Reduced Set, Hargreaves, and Turc methods, were evaluated for use in Mississippi, a humid region of the USA, using only measurements of air temperature. The Turc equation, developed for use with measured temperature and solar radiation, was tested with estimated radiation and found to provide better estimates of FAO-56 ETo than the other methods. Mean bias errors of 0.75, 0.28, and -0.19 mm, mean absolute errors of 0.92, 0.68, and 0.62 mm, and percent errors of 22.5%, 8.5%, and -5.7% were found for daily estimates for the FAO-56 Reduced Set, Hargreaves, and Turc methods, respectively.
出处 《Agricultural Sciences》 2013年第8期51-60,共10页 农业科学(英文)
关键词 Reference EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FAO-56 PENMAN-MONTEITH Turc HARGREAVES REDUCED Set IRRIGATION Scheduling Reference Evapotranspiration FAO-56 Penman-Monteith Turc Hargreaves Reduced Set Irrigation Scheduling
  • 相关文献

同被引文献4

引证文献3

二级引证文献7

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部