Advertisement

Irrigation Science

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 39–46 | Cite as

Evaluation of estimated weather data for calculating Penman-Monteith reference crop evapotranspiration

  • Claudio O. StöckleEmail author
  • Jim Kjelgaard
  • Gianni Bellocchi
Original Paper

Abstract

Utilizing the weather generator ClimGen, daily solar radiation (R s) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) were estimated from temperature data and used to calculate evapotranspiration at five locations, representing tropical, temperate, semi-arid, and arid climates. ClimGen was calibrated for each location using the most recent 2 or 5 years of complete daily weather records. Actual and estimated values were compared on a daily and weekly (7-day running average) basis. Error indices were defined to indicate excellent to poor performance of the estimation methods. Overall in all locations, the ClimGen estimates for both daily R s and VPD were poor to acceptable. The weekly analyses showed significant improvement in performance for both R s and VPD estimations in arid and semi-arid locations. Daily reference crop evapotranspiration values using the FAO Penman-Monteith equation (PM ETo) were calculated using complete daily weather records. These values were compared with (1) ETo calculated with the PM model, actual temperature data, and ClimGen estimates of daily R s, VPD, and generated wind speed (PMEst ETo), and (2) ETo calculated solely from actual daily temperature data using a calibrated version of the Hargreaves method (HGAdj ETo). The daily PMEst ETo results were poor to acceptable in all locations, but analyses for weekly periods showed improved performance to acceptable and good levels for arid and semi-arid locations. The performance of the HGAdj ETo method was also poor to acceptable for daily ET estimates in all locations, while weekly analyses showed improvement. A non-calibrated version of the Hargreaves method did not work for either daily or weekly periods. The PMEst ETo and HGadj ETo methods appeared suitable for weekly periods in arid and semi-arid locations provided that at least 2 years of complete weather records were available to calibrate the parameters required. There was no advantage in using 5 years of weather records for calibration.

Keywords

Root Mean Square Error Vapor Pressure Deficit Weather Record Daily Solar Radiation Reference Crop Evapotranspiration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Al-Ghobari HM (2000) Estimation of reference evapotranspiration for southern regions of Saudi Arabia. Irrig Sci 19:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG (1996) Assessing integrity of weather data for reference evapotranspiration estimation. J Irrig Drain Eng 122:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen RG, Jensen ME, Wright JL, Burman RG (1989) Operational estimates of evapotranspiration. Agron J 81:650–662Google Scholar
  4. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. (FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56) FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bristow K, Campbell GS (1984) On the relationship between incoming solar radiation and daily maximum and minimum temperature. Agric For Meteorol 31:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castellvi F, Stöckle CO (2002) Comparing the performance of WGEN and ClimGen in the generation of temperature and solar radiation. Trans ASAE 44:1683–1687Google Scholar
  7. Donatelli M, Campbell GS (1998) A simple model to estimate global solar radiation. In: Proceedings of the 5th ESA congress, Nitra, Slovak Republic, pp 133–134Google Scholar
  8. Glassy JM, Running SW (1994) Validating diurnal climatology logic of the MT-CLIM model across a climatic gradient in Oregon. Ecol Appl 42:248–257Google Scholar
  9. Jensen ME, Burman RD, Allen RG (eds) (1990) Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements. (ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practices no. 70) American Society of Civil Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Jong R de, Tugwood PM (1987) Comparison of potential evapotranspiration models and some applications in soil water modeling. Can Agric Eng 29:15–20Google Scholar
  11. Lemeur R, Zhang L (1990) Evaluation of three evapotranspiration models in terms of their applicability for an arid region. J Hydrol 114:395–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Monteith J (1965) Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 281:277–329Google Scholar
  13. Shih SF, Cheng KS (1991) Evapotranspiration estimation for data-short environment. J Irrig Drain Eng 117:107–122Google Scholar
  14. Steiner JL, Howell TA, Schneider AD (1991) Lysimetric evaluation of daily potential evapotranspiration models for grain sorgum. Agron J 83:240–247Google Scholar
  15. Stöckle CO, Nelson R (1999) ClimGen: a weather generator program. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash., USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Stöckle CO, Martin S, Campbell GS (1994) CropSyst, a cropping systems model: water/nitrogen budgets and crop yield. Agric Syst 46:335–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stöckle CO, Donatelli M, Nelson R (2003) CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation model. Eur J Agron 18:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thornton PE, Running SW (1999) An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity, and precipitation. Agric For Meteorol 93:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ventura F, Spano D, Duce P, Snyder RL (1999) An evaluation of common evapotranspiration equations. Irrig Sci 18:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Willmott CJ (1982) Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 63:1309–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio O. Stöckle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jim Kjelgaard
    • 1
  • Gianni Bellocchi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.ISCIBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations