Evaluation of Potential Evapotranspiration in Central Macedonia by EmPEst

  • S. Gebhart
  • K. Radoglou
  • G. Chalivopoulos
  • A. Matzarakis
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Atmospheric Sciences book series (SPRINGERATMO)

Abstract

The differentiation and the determination of reference potential evapotranspiration (PETref) is important for many geo scientifically relevant questions. The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)-Penman-Monteith approach provides a facility for the estimation of PETref using meteorological input parameters. However, the equation needs a lot of different input parameters. Hence this work compares 13 different alternative equations using fewer input parameters of four meteorological stations in Central Macedonia. The stations Loutra, and Skotina are located in the South of central Macedonia, while the stations Gumenissa and Grisopigi are situated in the north. Six statistical goodness of fit measures, including mean absolute error (MAE), mean square error (MSE), relative mean absolute error (MRAE), relative mean square error (MRSE), mean bias error (MBE) and the root square mean error (RMSE), where used. Additionally a Welch t-test was applied to test significance of the results. Results were analyzed for monthly timescale. The calculation of the 13 different approaches of evapotranspiration has been performed by the EmPEST software.

Keywords

Root Mean Square Error Mean Square Error Mean Absolute Error Forest Research Institute Mean Bias Error 
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. Alexandris S, Stricevic R, Petcovic S (2008) Comparative analysis of reference evapotranspiration from the surface of rainfed grass in central Serbia, calculated by six empirical methods against the Penman-Monteith formula. Eur Water 21(22):17–28Google Scholar
  2. Allen R, Pereira L, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 5. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Fontenot R (2004) An evaluation of reference evapotranspiration models in Louisiana. Master thesis, Luisiana State University and A&M College, LouisianaGoogle Scholar
  4. Kostinakis K, Xystrakis F, Theodoropoulos K, Stathis D, Eleftheriadou E, Matzarakis A (2011) Estimation of reference potential evapotranspiration with focus on vegetation science – the EmPEst software. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 137:616–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 Assoc 41:621–633. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03759.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Willmott C (1982) Some comment on the evaluation of model performance. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 63:1309–1313. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1982) 063<1309:SCOTEO>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Xystrakis F, Kostinakis K (2010) EmPEst – empirical reference potential evaporation estimation: user’s guide. Available at http://empest.wordpress.com/
  8. Xystrakis F, Matzarakis A (2011) Evaluation of 13 empirical reference potential evapotranspiration equations on the island of Crete in southern Greece. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 137:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Gebhart
    • 1
  • K. Radoglou
    • 2
  • G. Chalivopoulos
    • 2
  • A. Matzarakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Meteorological InstituteAlbert-Ludwigs-University FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Forest Research Institute, NAGREFThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations