Comparative evaluation of 24 reference evapotranspiration equations applied on an evergreen-broadleaved forest

被引:27
作者
Bourletsikas, Athanassios [1 ]
Argyrokastritis, Ioannis [2 ]
Proutsos, Nikolaos [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Mediterranean Forest Ecosyst, Dept Forest Ecol & Hydrol, Athens, Greece
[2] Agr Univ Athens, Dept Nat Resources Dev & Agr Engn, Athens, Greece
来源
HYDROLOGY RESEARCH | 2018年 / 49卷 / 04期
关键词
comparative analysis; evergreen-broadleaved forest; FAO56; Penman-Monteith; Mediterranean climate; reference evapotranspiration; western Greece; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODEL; POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; WATER-BALANCE; PENMAN-MONTEITH; EVAPORATION; LAKE; PERFORMANCE; VEGETATION; CLIMATE; INPUT;
D O I
10.2166/nh.2017.232
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
Reference evapotranspiration (ET0) is amajor component of the hydrological cycle. Its use is essential both for the hydrological rainfall-runoff assessment models and determination of water requirements in agricultural and forest ecosystems. This study investigates the performance of 24 differentmethods, which produce ET0 or potential evapotranspiration estimates above a grass-covered ground in a Mediterranean forest environment in Greece and compares the derived results with those of the presumed most accurate and scientifically acceptable Penman-Monteith method (ETP-M). Their performance was evaluated on a daily basis for a period of 17 years, using 17 different statistical parameters of goodness of fit. The results showed that some empirical methods could serve as suitable alternatives. More specifically, Copais (ETCOP), Hargreaves original (ETHAR), and Valiantzas2 (ETVA2) methods, exhibited very good values of the model efficiency index, EF (0.934, 0.932, and 0.917, respectively) and the index of agreement, d (0.984, 0.982, and 0.977, respectively). Additionally, the differences of the estimated mean daily value against the respective ETP-M value (rt index) for all methods had a range of -27.8% (Penman - ETPEN) to +59.5% (Romanenko-ETROM), while Copais (ETCOP), Hargreaves-Samani modified1 (ETHS1), and STU (ETSTU) yielded the best values (-0.06%, +0.06%, and 0.22%, respectively).
引用
收藏
页码:1028 / 1041
页数:14
相关论文
共 84 条
  • [1] Abtew W, 1996, WATER RESOUR BULL, V32, P465
  • [2] ALBRECHT F., 1950, ARCH METEOROL GEOPHYS AND BIOKLIMATOL SER B, V2, P1, DOI 10.1007/BF02242718
  • [3] Daily reference evapotranspiration estimates by the "Copais" approach
    Alexandris, S
    Kerkides, P
    Liakatas, A
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2006, 82 (03) : 371 - 386
  • [4] Alexandris S., 2013, P 8 NAT AGR C 25 26, P110
  • [5] Alexandris S., 2008, European Water, V21, P17
  • [6] Allen R. G., 1998, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2005, The ASCE Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation, DOI DOI 10.1061/9780784408056
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2015, APPL WATER SCI, DOI DOI 10.1007/S13201-014-0234-2
  • [9] [Anonymous], 1988, Soil Map of the World, Revised Legend
  • [10] Baloutsos George, 2009, WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, V5, P310