The best alternative for estimating reference crop evapotranspiration in different sub-regions of mainland China
Abstract Reference crop evapotranspiration (ET o) is a critically important parameter for climatological, hydrological and agricultural management. The FAO56 Penman-Monteith (PM) equation has been recommended as the standardized ET o (ET o,s) equation, but it has a high requirements of climatic data...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/12cd0566c22e4afdb7ab0e3b3fc8974a |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Reference crop evapotranspiration (ET o) is a critically important parameter for climatological, hydrological and agricultural management. The FAO56 Penman-Monteith (PM) equation has been recommended as the standardized ET o (ET o,s) equation, but it has a high requirements of climatic data. There is a practical need for finding a best alternative method to estimate ET o in the regions where full climatic data are lacking. A comprehensive comparison for the spatiotemporal variations, relative errors, standard deviations and Nash-Sutcliffe efficacy coefficients of monthly or annual ET o,s and ET o,i (i = 1, 2, …, 10) values estimated by 10 selected methods (i.e., Irmak et al., Makkink, Priestley-Taylor, Hargreaves-Samani, Droogers-Allen, Berti et al., Doorenbos-Pruitt, Wright and Valiantzas, respectively) using data at 552 sites over 1961–2013 in mainland China. The method proposed by Berti et al. (2014) was selected as the best alternative of FAO56-PM because it was simple in computation process, only utilized temperature data, had generally good accuracy in describing spatiotemporal characteristics of ET o,s in different sub-regions and mainland China, and correlated linearly to the FAO56-PM method very well. The parameters of the linear correlations between ET o of the two methods are calibrated for each site with the smallest determination of coefficient being 0.87. |
|---|