IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v16y2002i3p197-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross Comparison of Empirical Equations for Calculating Potential Evapotranspiration with Data from Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • C.-Y. Xu
  • V. Singh

Abstract

Earlier studies (Singh and Xu, 1997; Xu and Singh, 2000, 2001) have evaluated and compared various popular empirical evapotranspiration equations that belonged to three categories:(1) mass-transfer based methods, (2) radiation based methods, and(3) temperature-based methods; and the best and worst equations of each category were determined for the study regions. In this study a cross comparison of the best or representative equation forms selected from each category was made. Five representativeempirical potential evapotranspiration equations selected from the three categories, namely: Hargreaves and Blaney-Criddle (temperature-based), Makkink and Priestley-Taylor (radiation-based) and Rohwer (mass-transfer-based) were evaluatedand compared with the Penman-Monteith equation using daily meteorological data from the Changins station in Switzerland.The calculations of the Penman-Monteith equation followed theprocedure recommended by FAO (Allen et al., 1998). Thecomparison was first made using the original constant valuesinvolved in each empirical equation and then made using therecalibrated constant values. The study showed that: (1) theoriginal constant values involved in each empirical equationworked quite well for the study region, except that the valueof α=1.26 in Priestley-Taylor was found to be too high and therecalibration gave a value of α=0.90 for the region.(2) Improvement was achieved for the Blaney-Criddle method by addinga transition period in determining the parameter k. (3) The differences of performance between the best equation forms selected from each category are smaller than the differences between different equations within each category as reportedin earlier studies (Xu and Singh, 2000, 2001). Further examinationof the performance resulted in the following rank of accuracy ascompared with the Penman-Monteith estimates: Priestley-Taylor andMakkink (Radiation-based), Hargreaves and Blaney-Criddle (temperature-based) and Rohwer (Mass-transfer). Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Suggested Citation

  • C.-Y. Xu & V. Singh, 2002. "Cross Comparison of Empirical Equations for Calculating Potential Evapotranspiration with Data from Switzerland," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 16(3), pages 197-219, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:16:y:2002:i:3:p:197-219
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1020282515975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1020282515975
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1020282515975?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rohwer, Carl, 1931. "Evaporation from Free Water Surfaces," Technical Bulletins 163103, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. McGuinness, J. L. & Borone, Erich F., 1972. "A Comparison of Lysimeter-Derived Potential Evapotranspiration With Computed Values," Technical Bulletins 171893, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammed Magdy Hamed & Najeebullah Khan & Mohd Khairul Idlan Muhammad & Shamsuddin Shahid, 2022. "Ranking of Empirical Evapotranspiration Models in Different Climate Zones of Pakistan," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Matin Ahooghalandari & Mehdi Khiadani & Mina Esmi Jahromi, 2016. "Developing Equations for Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration in Australia," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(11), pages 3815-3828, September.
    3. Vishwakarma, Dinesh Kumar & Pandey, Kusum & Kaur, Arshdeep & Kushwaha, N.L. & Kumar, Rohitashw & Ali, Rawshan & Elbeltagi, Ahmed & Kuriqi, Alban, 2022. "Methods to estimate evapotranspiration in humid and subtropical climate conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    4. Xiang, Keyu & Li, Yi & Horton, Robert & Feng, Hao, 2020. "Similarity and difference of potential evapotranspiration and reference crop evapotranspiration – a review," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    5. Ruperto Ortiz-Gómez & Roberto S. Flowers-Cano & Guillermo Medina-García, 2022. "Sensitivity of the RDI and SPEI Drought Indices to Different Models for Estimating Evapotranspiration Potential in Semiarid Regions," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(7), pages 2471-2492, May.
    6. Mohd Khairul Idlan Muhammad & Mohamed Salem Nashwan & Shamsuddin Shahid & Tarmizi bin Ismail & Young Hoon Song & Eun-Sung Chung, 2019. "Evaluation of Empirical Reference Evapotranspiration Models Using Compromise Programming: A Case Study of Peninsular Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Shirmohammadi-Aliakbarkhani, Zahra & Saberali, Seyed Farhad, 2020. "Evaluating of eight evapotranspiration estimation methods in arid regions of Iran," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    8. Valle Júnior, Luiz C.G. & Ventura, Thiago M. & Gomes, Raphael S.R. & de S. Nogueira, José & de A. Lobo, Francisco & Vourlitis, George L. & Rodrigues, Thiago R., 2020. "Comparative assessment of modelled and empirical reference evapotranspiration methods for a brazilian savanna," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    9. Zhao, J. & Bilbao, J.I. & Spooner, E.D. & Sproul, A.B., 2018. "Experimental study of a solar pool heating system under lower flow and low pump speed conditions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 320-335.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:16:y:2002:i:3:p:197-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.