Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 104, Issue 3–4, pp 729–753 | Cite as

Sensitivity analysis of 18 different potential evapotranspiration models to observed climatic change at German climate stations

  • Helge Bormann
Article

Abstract

Potential evapotranspiration models very often are important part of hydrological catchment models to calculate potential evapotranspiration (PET) which then is used to estimate actual evapotranspiration considering the soil moisture status. As many different approaches exist, the question arises in which way the choice of the PET model affects the impact of climate change on the calculated water balance? Therefore, 18 different PET models were compared with respect to their sensitivity to observed climate change. Long-term climate data of six German climate stations were used to identify changes in the climate data itself and changes in the calculated PET. The results show that all investigated PET models are sensitive to significant trends in climate data. However, it is also shown that all models show different sensitivities, and that the sensitivities cannot be grouped in terms of different types of PET models such as the aerodynamic concept, radiation or temperature based approaches and combination equations. Predominantly, the variability within a group of models of the same type is comparable to the variability between different model types. Therefore it can be concluded that PET models should be validated in a regional context before they are applied to a certain region within a climate change study despite the poor availability of long-term PET measurements.

Keywords

Climate Data Potential Evapotranspiration Sunshine Duration Wind Force Combination Equation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrecht F (1950) Die Methoden zur Bestimmung Verdunstung der natürlichen Erdoberfläche. Arch MeteorGeoph Biokl Ser B 2:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amataya DM, Skaggs RW, Gregory JD (1995) Comparison of methods for estimating REF-ET. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 121(6):427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreassian V, Perrin C, Michel C (2004) Impact of imperfect potential evapotranspiration knowledge on the efficiency and parameters of watershed models. J Hydrol 286:19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnell NW, Reynard N (1993) Impact of climate change on river flow regimes in the United Kingdom. Institute of Hydrology Report to DOE, Water DirectorateGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaney HF, Criddle WD (1950) Determining water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological and irrigation data. USDA Soil Conservation Service Tech Paper 96, 48 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Bormann H, Diekkrüger B, Richter O (1996) Effects of data availability on estimation of evapotranspiration. Phys Chem Earth 21(3):171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braden H (1995) The model AMBETI—a detailed description of a soil–plant–atmosphere model. Berichte des Deutschen Wetterdienstes 195, Offenbach, 117 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Brockamp B, Wenner H (1963) Verdunstungsmessungen auf den Steiner See bei Münster. Dt Gewässerkundl Mitt 7:149–154Google Scholar
  9. Castaneda L, Rao P (2005) Comparison of methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration in southern California. J Environ Hydrol 13(14):1–10Google Scholar
  10. Clapeyron E (1834) Puissance motrice de la chaleur. Journal de l’École Royale Polytechnique. Vingt-troisième cahier, Tome XIV:153–190Google Scholar
  11. Dalton J (1802) Experimental essays on the constitution of mixed gases; on the force of steam of vapour from waters and other liquids in different temperatures, both in a torricellian vacuum and in air on evaporation and on the expansion of gases by heat. Mem Manch Lit Phil Soc 5:535–602Google Scholar
  12. Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO (1977) CropWater Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24, FAO. Rome, Italy. 144 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. FAO (1990) Report on the export consultation on revision of FAO methodologies for crop water requirements. Land and Water Devel. Div., Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. Feddes RA, Kowalik PJ, Zaradny H (1978) Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Simulations Monograph, PudocGoogle Scholar
  15. Federer CA, Vörösmarty C, Fekete B (1996) Intercomparison of methods for calculating potential evaporation in regional and global water balance models. Water Resour Res 32(7):2315–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haude W (1955) Zur Bestimmung der Verdunstung auf möglichst einfache Weise. Mitt Dt Wetterd 2(11). Bad KissingenGoogle Scholar
  17. Hounam CE (1971) Problems of evaporation assessment in the water balance. Report No. 3 on WMO/IHD Project, WMO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007—the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. 996 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Jensen ME, Haise HR (1963) Estimating evapotranspiration from solar radiation. J Irrig Drain Div ASCE 89:15–41Google Scholar
  20. Jensen ME, Burman RD, Allen RG (Eds) (1990) Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements. ASC Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 70. 332 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Jensen DT, Hargreaves GH, Temesgen B, Allen RG (1997) Computation of ET0 under nonideal conditions. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 123(5):394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kashyap PS, Panda RK (2001) Evaluation of evapotranspiration estimation methods and development of crop-coefficients for potato crop in a sub-humid region. Agric Water Manag 50:9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krysanova V, Buiteveld H, Haase D, Hattermann FF, van Niekerk K, Roest K, Martinez-Santos P, Schlüter M (2008) Practices and lessons learned in coping with climatic hazards at the river-basin scale: floods and drought. Ecol Soc 13(2):32. [online] Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art32/ Google Scholar
  24. Löpmeier FJ (1983) Ein Agrarmeteorologischens Modell zur Berechung der Aktuellen Verdunstung (AMBAV). Beiträge zur Agrarmeteorologie 7/83. ZAMF, Braunschweig, 50 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu J, Sun G, McNulty SG, Amatya DM (2005) A comparison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States. J Am Water Resour As 41(3):621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahringer W (1970) Verdunstungsstudien am Neusiedler See. Arch Met Geoph Biokl Ser B 18:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKenney MS, Rosenberg NJ (1993) Sensitivity of some potential evapotranspiration estimation methods to climate change. Agr Forest Metorol 64:81–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer A (1926) Über einige Zusammenhänge zwischen Klima und Boden in Europa. Chemie der Erde 2:209–347Google Scholar
  29. Monteith JL (1965) Evaporation and environment. In: Fogy GT (ed) The state and movement of water in living organism. Cambridge, pp 205–234Google Scholar
  30. Oudin L, Hervieu F, Michel C et al (2005) Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall–runoff model? Part 2—towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling. J Hydrol 303:290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penman HC (1948) Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 193:120–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evapotranspiration using large scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rijtema PE (1968) Derived meteorological data: transpiration. Unesco Nat Res Res 7:55–72. ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritchie JT (1972) Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resour Res 8:1204–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robert G (1998) The effects of possible future climate change on evaporation losses from four contrasting UK water catchment areas. Hydrol Process 12:727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schendel U (1967) Vegetationswasserverbrauch und -wasserbedarf. Habilitation, Kiel, 137 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Schönwiese CD (1999) Das Klima der jüngeren Vergangenheit. Physik in unserer Zeit 30(3):94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schrödter H (1985) Verdunstung. Anwendungsorientierte Messverfahren und Bestimmungsmethoden. Springer Berlin, 186 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh VP, Xu CY (1997a) Evaluation and generalization of 13 mass-transfer equations for determining free-water evaporation. Hydrol Process 11:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh VP, Xu CY (1997b) Sensitivity of mass transfer-based evaporation equations to errors in daily and monthly input data. Hydrol Process 11:1465–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Temesgen B, Eching S, Davidoff B, Frame K (2005) Comparison of some reference evapotranspiration equations for California. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 131(1):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trabert W (1896) Neue Beobachtungen über Verdampfungsgeschwindigkeiten. Meteorol Z 13:261–263Google Scholar
  43. Trajkovic S (2007) Hargreaves versus Penman–Monteith under humid conditions. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 133(1):38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turc L (1961) Evaluation des besoins en eau irrigation, l’evapotranspiration potentielle. Ann Agron 12:13–49Google Scholar
  45. Vörösmarty CJ, Federer CA, Schloss AL (1998) Potential evaporation functions compared on US watersheds: Possible implications for global-scale water balance and terrestrial ecosystem modelling. J Hydrol 207:147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiß M, Menzel L (2008) A global comparison of four potential evapotranspiration equations and their relevance to stream flow modelling in semi-arid environments. Adv Geosci 18:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. WMO (1966) Measurement and estimation of evaporation and evapotranspiration. Tech Pap (CIMO-Rep) 83. GenfGoogle Scholar
  48. Xu CY, Chen D (2005) Comparison of seven models for estimation of evapotranspiration and groundwater recharge using lysimeter measurement data in Germany. Hydrol Process 19:3717–1734Google Scholar
  49. Xu CY, Singh VP (2000) Evaluation and generalization of radiation-based methods for calculating evaporation. Hydrol Process 14:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu CY, Singh VP (2001) Evaluation and generalization of temperature-based methods for calculating evaporation. Hydrol Process 15:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu CY, Singh VP (2002) Cross comparison of Empirical Equations for calculating potential evapotranspiration with data from Switzerland. Water Resour Manag 16:197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yoder RE, Odhiambo LO, Wright WC (2005) Evaluation of methods for estimating daily reference crop evapotranspiration at a site in the humid Southeast United States. Appl Eng Agric 21(2):197–202Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Biology and Environmental SciencesUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations