Accuracy Evaluation of Twenty Empirical Models in Estimating Coastal Regions Reference Evapotranspiration in different climate

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Faculty Member

2 PhD Student of Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Water Engineering, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran

3 PhD Candidate in Water Resources Engineering, Department of Water Engineering, Urmia University, Iran

Abstract

Accuracy Evaluation of Twenty Empirical Models in Estimating Coastal Regions Reference Evapotranspiration in different climate

Abstract
Background and Objectives: Evapotranspiration is a main component of the water cycle and is important in agricultural water management. There are a whole host of factors that affect evapotranspiration, which makes it difficult to estimate accurately. Accordingly, several methods have been proposed for its estimation. Measurement of evapotranspiration using weighing lysimeter is the most accurate method. But due to expensive build of Weighing lysimeter, simplified empirical methods for calculating potential evapotranspiration are widely used and its results were compared to reference evapotranspiration (FAO-Penman-Monteith) method.
Materials and Methods: In this study a cross comparison of FAO-Penman-Monteith method and 20 Empirical Equations for Calculating Potential Evapotranspiration in a period of 10 years from 2007 to 2016, in Rasht, Sari and Gorgan synoptic stations in coastal zone of Caspian Sea, was made. These stations were selected for climatic variation from humid climates to Mediterranean climates. The Root mean squared error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Percent error (PE) were used to measure accuracy of these methods.
Results: The results showed that daily evapotranspiration values obtained from Ravazzani method were very closer to FAO-Penman-Monteith method than those of the other models. So that results in terms of the measured errors involve RMSE, MAE and PE, which obtained 0.77, 0.54 (mm/day) and 21.6% for Rasht, 0.8, -0.39. (mm/day) and 9.4% for Sari and 0.99, -0.42 (mm/day) and 9.88% for Gorgan. Also, the results showed that the accuracy of Romanenko model was lower than other models. Overall, in all of the studied climates, the Ravazzani et al, Berti et al, Hargreaves- Sammani, Irmak et al and Valiantzas models had better performance than other models in estimating the reference evapotranspiration

Conclusion: The results of this study showed decrease in the accuracy of ET models compared to reference model of FAO-Penman-Monteith for moving from humid to Mediterranean climate. The mass transfer based models like Mahringer and Tabari showed relative undesirable efficiency in coastal zone. Therefore, it can be noticed that empirical equation can lead to variable efficiency in different climate.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed decrease in the accuracy of ET models compared to reference model of FAO-Penman-Monteith for moving from humid to Mediterranean climate. The mass transfer based models like Mahringer and Tabari showed relative undesirable efficiency in coastal zone. Therefore, it can be noticed that empirical equation can lead to variable efficiency in different climate.
Keywords: Coastal Regions, Empirical methods, FAO-Penman-Monteith, Reference Evapotranspiration,

Keywords

References

1.Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, Rome. Pp: 156.
2.Allen, R.G. 2003. Crop coefficients. In: Stewart, B.A., Howell, T.A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Water Science. Marcel Dekker Publishers, New York. Pp: 87-90.
3.Alizadeh, A., Mahdavi, M., Enanlou, M., and Bazari, M.A. 2001. Investigation of accuracy and performance of calculated potential evapotranspiration by Hargreaves- Samani method and evaporation pan at synoptic stations of Khorasan province. Nivar, 42-43: 51-70. (In Persian)

4.Almorox, J., Senatore, A., and Quej, V.H. 2018. Worldwide assessment of the Penman–Monteith temperature approach for the estimation of monthly reference evapotranspiration. Theor Appl Climatol. 131: 693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1996-2.

5.Azhar, A.H., and Perera, B.J.C. 2011. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration estimation methods under Southeast Australian Conditions. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 137: 5. 268-279.
6.Berti, A., Tardivo, G., Chiaudani, A., Rech, F., and Borin, M. 2014. Assessing reference evapotranspiration by the Hargreaves method in north-eastern Italy. Agricultural Water Management, 140: 20-25.
7.Bogawski, P., and Bednorz, E. 2014. Comparison and validation of selected evapotranspiration models for conditions in Poland (Central Europe). Water Resources Management, 28: 5021-5038.
8.Djaman, K., and Irmak, S. 2013. Actual crop evapotranspiration and alfalfa- and grass-reference crop coefficientsof maize under full and limited irrigation and rainfed conditions. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 139: 6. 433-446.
9.Djaman, K., Balde, A.B., Sow, A., Muller, B., Irmak, S., N’Diaye, M.K., Manneh, B., Moukoumbi, Y.D., Futakuchi, K., and Saito, K. 2015. Evaluation of sixteen reference evapotranspiration methods under sahelian conditions in the Senegal River Valley. J. Hydrol. Region. Stud.
3: 139-159.
10.Droogers, P., and Allen, R.G. 2002. Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions. Irrigation and Drainage Systems,
16: 1. 33-45.
11.Gundalia, M.J., and Dholakia, M.B. 2013. Dependence of evaporation on meteorological variables at daily time-scale andestimation of pan evaporation in Junagadh region. Amer. J. Engin. Res. 2: 10. 354-362.
12.Hansen, S. 1984. Estimation of potential and actual evapotranspiration. Nordic Hydrology, 15: 4-5. 205-212.
13.Hargreaves, G.H., and Samani, Z.A. 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1: 2. 96-99.
14.Irmak, S., Irmak, A., Allen, R.G., and Jones, J.W. 2003. Solar and net radiation-based equations to
estimate reference evapotranspiration in humid climates. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 129: 5. 336-347.
15.Jabloun, M., and Sahli, A. 2008. Evaluation of FAO-56 methodology for estimating reference evapotranspiration using limited climatic data application to Tunisia. Agricultural Water Management, 95: 707-715.
16.Jakimavicius, D., Kriauciuniene, J., Gailiusis, B., and Sarauskiene, D. 2013. Assessment of uncertainty in estimatingthe evaporation from the Curonian Lagoon. Baltica, 26: 2. 177-186.
17.Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D., and Allen, R.G. 1990. Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements. In: ASCE Manual No. 70. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). New York, NY.
18.Kisi, O., and Zounemat-Kermani, M. 2014. Comparison of two different adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems in modelling daily reference evapotranspiration. Water Resources Management, 28: 2655-2675.
19.Landeras, G., Bekoe, E., Ampofo, J., Logah, F., Diop, M., Cisse, M., and Shiri, J. 2018. New alternatives for reference evapotranspiration estimation in West Africa using limited weather data and ancillary data supply strategies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 132: 3-4. 701-716.
20.Mahringer, W. 1970. Verdunstungsstudien am neusiedler See. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, Serie B, 18: 1. 1-20.
21.Makkink, G.F. 1957. Testing the Penman formula by means of lysimeters. J. Inter. Water Engin. 11: 277-288.
22.Martinez, C.J., and Thepadia, M. 2010. Estimating reference evapotranspiration with minimum data in Florida, J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 136: 7. 494-501.
23.Mohawesh, O.E. 2011. Evaluation of evapotranspiration models for estimating daily reference evapotranspiration in arid andsemiarid environments. Plant, Soil and Environment, 57: 4. 145-152.

24.Mokhtari, A., Noory, H., and Vazifedoust, M. 2018. Performance of Different Surface Incoming Solar Radiation Models and Their Impacts on Reference Evapotranspiration. Water Resour Manage. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-018-1974-9.

25.Nikbakht, J., Mir-latifi, S.M., and Kamali, G.A. 2001. Comparison of calculated evapotranspiration with FAO Penman-Monteith, Penman-Wright and Harmorosis Samani methods in Tehran. J. Agric. Sci. Natur. Resour. Gorgan. 8: 4. 3-13. (In Persian)
26.Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andreassian, V., Anctil, F., and Loumagne, C. 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: 1-4. 290-306.
27.Penman, L.H. 1963. Vegetation and Hydrology. Technical Communication. No. 53. Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, Harpenden. England, 125.
28.Ravazzani, G., Corbari, C., Morella, S., Gianoli, P., and Mancini, M. 2012. Modified Hargreaves-Samani equation for the assessment of reference evapotranspiration in Alpine River Basins. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 138: 7. 592-599.
29.Romanenko, V.A. 1961. Computation of the autumn soil moisture using a universal relationship for a large area. In: Proceedings, Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Research Institute, No. 3 Kiev.
30.Sabziparvar, A.A., and Tabari, H. 2010. Regional estimation of reference evapotranspiration in arid and semi-arid regions. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 136: 10. 724-731.
31.Schendel, U. 1967. Vegetations Wasserverbrauch und Wasserbedarf. Habilitation, Kiel, 137p.
32.Sharifan, H., Ghahreman, B., Alizadeh, A., and Mir-Latifi, S.M. 2006, Comparison of the different methods of estimated Referense Evapotranspiration (Compound and Temperature) with standard method and analysis of aridity effects. J. Agric. Sci. Natur. Resour. 13: 1. (In Persian)
33.Tabari, H. 2010. Evaluation of reference crop evapotranspiration equations in various climates. Water Resources Management, 24: 10. 2311-2337.
34.Tabari, H., Grismer, M., and Trajkovic, S. 2013. Comparative analysis of 31 reference evapotranspiration methods under humid conditions. Irrigation Science, 31: 2. 107-117.
35.Thornthwaite, C.W. 1948. An approach towards a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review, 38: 1. 55-94.
36.Trabert, W. 1896. Neue Beobachtungen¨uber Verdampfungs geschwindigkeiten. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 13: 261-263.
37.Trajkovic, S. 2007. Hargreaves versus Penman–Monteith under humid conditions. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin.
133: 1. 38-42.
38.Trajkovic, S., and Kolakovic, S. 2009. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations under humid conditions. Water Resources Management, 23: 14. 3057-3067.
39.Valiantzas, D.J. 2013. Simplified forms for the standardized FAO-56 Penman–Monteith reference evapotranspiration using limited data. J. Hydrol. 505: 13-23.
40.Valipour, M. 2015. Investigation of Valiantzas’ evapotranspiration equation in Iran. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 121: 1. 267-278.
41.Yoder, R.E., Odhiambo, L.O., and Wright, W.C. 2005. Evaluation of methods for estimating daily reference crop evapotranspiration at a site in the humid southeast United States. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 21: 2. 197-202.
42.Zia Tabar Ahmadi, M.K. 1995. A Study and Comparison of Methods for Calculating Potential Evapotranspiration in Mazandaran Province. Nivar, 28: 40-55. (In Persian)
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 25, Issue 4
November and December 2018
Pages 307-320

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics