Cross Comparison of Empirical Equations for Calculating Potential Evapotranspiration with Data from Switzerland

C.-Y. Xu () and V. Singh

Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), 2002, vol. 16, issue 3, 197-219

Abstract: Earlier studies (Singh and Xu, 1997; Xu and Singh, 2000, 2001) have evaluated and compared various popular empirical evapotranspiration equations that belonged to three categories:(1) mass-transfer based methods, (2) radiation based methods, and(3) temperature-based methods; and the best and worst equations of each category were determined for the study regions. In this study a cross comparison of the best or representative equation forms selected from each category was made. Five representativeempirical potential evapotranspiration equations selected from the three categories, namely: Hargreaves and Blaney-Criddle (temperature-based), Makkink and Priestley-Taylor (radiation-based) and Rohwer (mass-transfer-based) were evaluatedand compared with the Penman-Monteith equation using daily meteorological data from the Changins station in Switzerland.The calculations of the Penman-Monteith equation followed theprocedure recommended by FAO (Allen et al., 1998). Thecomparison was first made using the original constant valuesinvolved in each empirical equation and then made using therecalibrated constant values. The study showed that: (1) theoriginal constant values involved in each empirical equationworked quite well for the study region, except that the valueof α=1.26 in Priestley-Taylor was found to be too high and therecalibration gave a value of α=0.90 for the region.(2) Improvement was achieved for the Blaney-Criddle method by addinga transition period in determining the parameter k. (3) The differences of performance between the best equation forms selected from each category are smaller than the differences between different equations within each category as reportedin earlier studies (Xu and Singh, 2000, 2001). Further examinationof the performance resulted in the following rank of accuracy ascompared with the Penman-Monteith estimates: Priestley-Taylor andMakkink (Radiation-based), Hargreaves and Blaney-Criddle (temperature-based) and Rohwer (Mass-transfer). Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Keywords: mass-transfer-based; potential evapotranspiration; radiation-based; Switzerland; temperature-based (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2002
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (38)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1020282515975 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:waterr:v:16:y:2002:i:3:p:197-219

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11269

DOI: 10.1023/A:1020282515975

Access Statistics for this article

Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) is currently edited by G. Tsakiris

More articles in Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) from Springer, European Water Resources Association (EWRA)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().