2005Journal of Irrigation and Drainage EngineeringRequires access

Comparison of Some Reference Evapotranspiration Equations for California

Bekele Temesgen, Simon Eching, B. Davidoff, Kent Frame

Open publisher page 247 citations

Abstract

Four reference evapotranspiration (ETo) equations are compared using weather data from 37 agricultural weather stations across the state of California. The equations compared include the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Penman equation, the Penman–Monteith equation standardized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Penman–Monteith equation standardized by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Hargreaves equation. Hourly and daily comparisons of ETo and net radiation (Rn) are made using graphics and simple linear regressions. ETo values estimated by the CIMIS Penman equation correlated very well with the corresponding values estimated by the standardized Penman–Monteith equations on both hourly and daily time steps. However, there are greater differences between the Rn values estimated by the two procedures. Although there are exceptions, the Hargreaves equation compared well to the FAO Penman–Monteith method. Spatial variability of the resulting correlations between the different equations is also assessed. Despite the wide variability of microclimates in the state, there are no visible spatial trends in correlations between the different ETo and/or Rn estimates.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Four reference evapotranspiration (ETo) equations are compared using weather data from 37 agricultural weather stations across the state of California. The equations compared include the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Penman equation, the Penman–Monteith equation standardized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Penman–Monteith equation standardized by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Hargreaves equation. Hourly and daily comparisons of ETo and net radiation (Rn) are made using graphics and simple linear regressions. ETo values estimated by the CIMIS Penman equation correlated very well with the corresponding values estimated by the standardized Penman–Monteith equations on both hourly and daily time steps. However, there are greater differences between the Rn values estimated by the two procedures. Although there are exceptions, the Hargreaves equation compared well to the FAO Penman–Monteith method. Spatial variability of the resulting correlations between the different equations is also assessed. Despite the wide variability of microclimates in the state, there are no visible spatial trends in correlations between the different ETo and/or Rn estimates.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 247 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Four reference evapotranspiration (ETo) equations are compared using weather data from 37 agricultural weather stations across the state of California. The equations compared include the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Penman equation, the Penman–Monteith equation standardized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Penman–Monteith equation standardized by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Hargreaves equation. Hourly and daily comparisons of ETo and net radiation (Rn) are made using graphics and simple linear regressions. ETo values estimated by the CIMIS Penman equation correlated very well with the corresponding values estimated by the standardized Penman–Monteith equations on both hourly and daily time steps. However, there are greater differences between the Rn values estimated by the two procedures. Although there are exceptions, the Hargreaves equation compared well to the FAO Penman–Monteith method. Spatial variability of the resulting correlations between the different equations is also assessed. Despite the wide variability of microclimates in the state, there are no visible spatial trends in correlations between the different ETo and/or Rn estimates.

Key concepts: Evapotranspiration, Penman–Monteith equation, Mathematics, Meteorology, Environmental science, Hydrology (agriculture), Statistics, Geography

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Some Reference Evapotranspiration Equations for California — Research Paper | ScholarLens