4.2 Article

Evaluation and validation of the ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equations for a subhumid site in northeastern Austria

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY AND HYDROMECHANICS
Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 289-296

Publisher

SCIENDO
DOI: 10.2478/johh-2019-0004

Keywords

Weighing lysimeter; Calculations; Hourly; Sum-of-hourly; Daily time steps

Funding

  1. Slovak Research and Development Agency [SK-AT-2015-0018]
  2. Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (OeAD-GmbH) [SK 08/2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Employing evapotranspiration models is a widely used method to estimate reference evapotranspiration (ETREF) based on weather data. Evaluating such models considering site-specific boundary conditions is recommended to interpret ETREF-calculations in a realistic and substantiated manner. Therefore, we evaluated the ASCE standardized ETREF-equations at a subhumid site in northeastern Austria. We calculated ETREF-values for hourly and daily time steps, whereof the former were processed to sum-of-hourly values. The obtained data were compared to each other and to ET-values measured by a weighing lysimeter under reference conditions. The resulting datasets covered daily data of the years 2004 to 2011. Sum-of-hourly values correlated well (r(2) = 0.978) with daily values, but an RMSE of 0.27 mm specified the differences between the calculation procedures. Comparing the calculations to lysimeter measurements revealed overestimation of small ETREF-values and underestimation of large values. The sum-of-hourly values outperformed the daily values, as r(2) of the former was slightly larger and RMSE was slightly smaller. Hence, sum-of-hourly computations delivered the best estimation of ETREF for a single day. Seasonal effects were obvious, with computations and measurements being closest to each other in the summer months.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available