Skip to main content

An evaluation of common evapotranspiration equations

Abstract

A comparison is made between the Pruitt and Doorenbos version of an hourly Penman-type equation, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) hourly Penman-Monteith equation, and an independent measure of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) from lysimeter data. Reducing the canopy resistance improved the hourly FAO Penman-Monteith estimates. Daytime soil heat flux density is estimated as 10% of net radiation in the FAO hourly Penman-Monteith equation; however, the measured soil heat flux density under grass that was never shorter than 0.10 m in this study was between 3% and 5% of net radiation. The daytime totals of hourly ET0 from the hourly Penman-Monteith and Pruitt-Doorenbos equations and ET0 from the 24-h FAO Penman-Monteith equation were computed using data from five Italian and five Californian stations. A comparison showed that all of the equations gave acceptable results. The Pruitt-Doorenbos equation may slightly over-estimate ET0 in conditions of summertime cold air advection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 18 November 1998

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ventura, F., Spano, D., Duce, P. et al. An evaluation of common evapotranspiration equations. Irrig Sci 18, 163–170 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002710050058

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002710050058

Keywords

  • Agriculture Organization
  • Independent Measure
  • Heat Flux
  • Acceptable Result
  • Reference Evapotranspiration