English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study compares four different potential evapotranspiration equationsaccording to Priestley Taylor, Kimberly Penman, Penman Monteith (FAO-56) andHargreaves on a global basis to demonstrate their difference, and assesstheir impact on the calculation of stream flows. The various equations ofpotential evapotranspiration show great differences in magnitude. But due tothe limited availability of validation data, it is difficult to assess whichmethod is the physically most reasonable to be applied. According to thisstudy, the radiation-based Priestley Taylor equation proved to be mostsuitable for a global application. For the calculation of stream flows,however, the processes involved in the derivation of actualevapotranspiration values from potential evapotranspiration values appearmore relevant than the absolute value of the potential evapotranspirationitself

A global comparison of four potential evapotranspiration equations and their relevance to stream flow modelling in semi-arid environments