A limited number of parameters or a single meteorological parameter was used in this study to estimate evapotranspiration. The main objectives of this study are as follows. (1) The Penman-Monteith method was used to estimate ET. The empirical formula published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was applied via substitu- tion to compare situations that were missing certain meteorological parameters. (2) Radiation-based methods and temperature-based methods were compared with the Penman-Monteith method to estimate ET and discuss their applicability in the study area. With Tainan Weather Station of Taiwan as the study area, this study selected the Penman-Monteith method as well as six other radiation-based estimation formulas: Makkink, Turc, Jensen-Haise, Priestley-Taylor, Doorenbos-Pruit, and Abtew methods. The other four temperature-based estimation formulas, namely, Thornthwaite, Blaney- Criddle, Hamon, and Linacre methods, were used to estimate ET and compare the differences and the results were compared with the Penman-Monteith method. The results showed that there was little effect on estimating ET using the Penman-Monteith method when the wind speed data was missing or insufficient. The Turc method was the best among the six radiation-based estimation formulas, while the Linacre method was the best temperature-based estimation formula. Generally speaking, radiation-based estimation formulas were more accurate than temperature-based estimation formulas.
CITATION STYLE
Yeh, H.-F. (2017). Comparison of Evapotranspiration Methods Under Limited Data. In Current Perspective to Predict Actual Evapotranspiration. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68495
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.