4.6 Article

The potential of different ANN techniques in evapotranspiration modelling

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages 2449-2460

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6837

Keywords

neural network techniques; Penman; Hargreaves; Ritchie; evapotranspiration; modelling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The potential of three different artificial neural network (ANN) techniques, the multi-layer perceptions (MLPs), radial basis neural networks (RBNNs) and generalized regression neural networks (GRNNs), in modelling of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) is investigated in this paper. Various daily climatic data, that is, solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity and wind speed from two stations, Pomona and Santa Monica, in Los Angeles, USA, are used as inputs to the ANN techniques so as to estimate ET0 obtained using the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith (PM) equation. In the first part of the study, a comparison is made between the estimates provided by the MLP, RBNN and GRNN and those of the following empirical models: The California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Penman (1985), Hargreaves (1985) and Ritchie (1990). In this part of the study, the empirical models are calibrated using the standard FAO-56 PM ET0 values. The estimates of the ANN techniques are also compared with those of the calibrated empirical models. Mean square errors, mean absolute errors and determination coefficient statistics are used as comparing criteria for the evaluation of the models' performances. Based on the comparisons, it is found that the MLP and RBNN techniques could be employed successfully in modelling the ET0 process. In the second part of the study, the potential of ANN techniques and the empirical methods in ET0 estimation using nearby station data is investigated. Among the models, the calibrated Hargreaves model is found to perform better than the others. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available