Premium
Intercomparison of three methods to estimate evapotranspiration over temperate meadow in Inner Mongolia: Penman–Monteith, Makkink and Priestley–Taylor equation
Author(s) -
Chen NiNa,
Zhang YuShu,
Jin ChangJie,
Wang AnZhi,
Guan DeXin,
Tian Li
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
water and environment journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.437
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 1747-6593
pISSN - 1747-6585
DOI - 10.1111/wej.12347
Subject(s) - evapotranspiration , eddy covariance , inner mongolia , mean squared error , mathematics , temperate climate , mean absolute error , covariance , penman–monteith equation , statistics , geography , ecology , ecosystem , china , archaeology , biology
Three methods of calculating evapotranspiration (ET), Penman–Monteith (PM), Makkink (MK) and Priestley–Taylor (PT) equation, were applied to a temperate meadow in Inner Mongolia, China. We compared these methods with eddy covariance (EC) method. The results indicated that a reduction in mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) was achieved for MK and PT methods (45.6–83.0%) when using site‐specific parameters compared with referenced ones, but an increase of 75.9–93.9% for PM method. Intercomparison of three methods through comparison with EC measurements indicated that PT method with site‐specific parameters performed the best to estimate ET, followed by PM method with referenced parameters, and then MK equation with site‐specific parameters (overestimate ET by 8.2, 12.1, 16.5% and 3.4, 12.8, 21.0% respectively for half‐hourly and daily values).