hsa044

46: Evaporation Modeling: Potential

RICHARD G ALLEN
Q1

University of Idaho, Kimberly, ID, US

FS

Potential evaporation (Ep ) has had a relatively broad range of definition over the past century. It is defined here
as the quantity of water evaporated per unit area per unit time from an idealized extensive free-water surface
under existing atmospheric conditions. Three primary, common means to estimate Ep have been used during
the past century. These are (i) pan evaporation measurement, (ii) an estimate of potential evapotranspiration
based on weather data, and (iii) a reference evapotranspiration. Of these three, reference evapotranspiration
(ETref ) has the more practical application. Potential evapotranspiration (ETp ) had widespread usage from
the 1940s through the 1970s, when the term was used to represent a maximum evaporative index from which
to derive estimates of actual ET from vegetation. However, there are several major, contrasting definitions for
ETp and several challenges associated with its usage. One of the primary definitions used for ETp is the rate of
evaporation and transpiration from a saturated (free-water) vegetated surface so that the evaporation process
occurs at the potential level. Challenges in sustaining a saturated surface and in measuring weather data that
are coincident with such a surface make this definition for ETp theoretically attractive, but practically difficult.
Standardized parameterizations of the PenmanMonteith equation are described for calculating ET for grass
and alfalfa references. The reference evapotranspiration, despite some shortcomings, can be a consistent and
reproducible index for a weather-based potential evaporation.

rainfall runoff and availability of water stored in soil and

water bodies.
Relatively large quantities of energy are required to
change the state of water molecules from liquid to vapor.
Solar radiation, and long-wave radiation (see Chapter 44,
Surface Radiation Balance, Volume 1) and, to a lesser
extent, heat from beneath the surface and from the lower
atmosphere provide this energy. The driving force to
remove vapor from the evaporating surface is the gradient between the vapor pressure at the surface and that
of the overlying atmosphere. As evaporation proceeds, the
surrounding air becomes more humid and the evaporation
process will slow down if the humid air is not transferred to
the atmosphere. The replacement of the saturated air with
drier air is a strong function of wind speed. Hence, solar
radiation, air temperature, air humidity, and wind speed are
climatological parameters to consider when assessing the
evaporation process.
There is an inverse relation between actual evaporation
and evaporative demand, as discussed from various
perspectives in (Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1,

PR

INTRODUCTION

ST

FI

hsa045

PA

Evaporation is the process whereby liquid water is converted to water vapor (vaporization) and removed from
the evaporating surface (vapor removal). Water evaporates
from a variety of surfaces, such as lakes, rivers, pavements,
soils, and vegetation. The evaporation of liquid water at
the earths surface and its consequent flux into the atmosphere is a major component of the hydrologic cycle and an
essential ingredient in sustaining biological systems of the
earth. Evaporation through plants drives the transpiration
process for transport of minerals from soil to plant parts and
provides evaporative cooling (see Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1). Evaporation from soil dries the upper soil
profile, thereby impacting strength of the soil surface and
infiltration rates during precipitation. Globally, the annual
volume of evaporation in essence equals the annual volume
of precipitation, with relatively small differences caused by
storage changes in ice fields, soil water, and groundwater
recharge or extraction. Evaporation has high spatial variability similar to that of precipitation, but is dampened by

Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Edited by M. Anderson.

2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

hsa042

hsa045

hsa044

hsa048

Chapter 48, Evaporation of Intercepted Rainfall, Volume 1, Chapter 49, Evaporation from Lakes, Volume 1,
and Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation, Volume 1). The
relation occurs because the evaporation demand or
potential varies with the heat energy stored in, and transported from, the lower atmosphere and the relative dryness
(thirst) of the lower atmosphere (in addition to radiation
energy), and because atmospheric characteristics depend on
the history of the air mass as it is influenced by upwind
evaporation processes. By definition, potential evaporation
is rarely reached over a region, owing to lack of an extensive free-water surface, but is a useful index by which to
characterize the atmospheric environment and by which to
set limits when quantifying water fluxes.
Definition of Potential Evaporation

hsa045

Impact of Surface Characteristics

PA

Most hydrologic process applications focus on areas having

vegetated surfaces. Therefore, it is important that the
definition of Ep , if it is used as an index, applies to those
surfaces as well as to water bodies. This creates a challenge
in defining a standardized Ep index to characterize climatic
demand because the potential vapor flux from a saturated
surface is influenced by the aerodynamic and radiation
properties of the surface. Thus, Ep from an aerodynamically
rough surface, such as a forest, will generally be greater
than that from an aerodynamically smooth surface, such
as short clipped grass (see Chapter 47, Transpiration,
Volume 1 and Chapter 48, Evaporation of Intercepted
Rainfall, Volume 1). Ep from a short clipped grass can be
greater than that from a deep, clear water body that absorbs
much of the solar radiation beneath the free-water surface
and thus makes it unavailable in real time for conversion
to latent heat (i.e. Ep ) (see Chapter 49, Evaporation from
Lakes, Volume 1). Consequently, a range of Ep indices are
needed to represent the maximum evaporation physically

hsa047

FI

hsa046

ST

hsa045

Feedback to the Atmosphere

In addition to the impact of vegetation roughness on Ep

rate, there are effects of negative feedback between the
demands of the atmospheric boundary layer and the Ep
rate. The negative feedback is caused by the humidification of the boundary layer and reduction of sensible
heat content (see Chapter 48, Evaporation of Intercepted
Rainfall, Volume 1 and Chapter 49, Evaporation from
Lakes, Volume 1). These effects are not immediate over
a small stretch of free-water surface, owing to the large
storage content of the lower boundary layer for both heat
and vapor. However, the effects become pronounced as the
fetch of free-water surface increases to distances on the
order of thousands of meters. Both of these modifications
to the boundary layer (heat and vapor storage) reduce Ep .
Therefore, to be strictly true to the definition of Ep given
previously, Ep should be estimated (if from weather-based
equations) only when the weather data are measured over
the same saturated surface from which Ep is occurring.
Otherwise, the weather data will not truthfully reflect the
feedback that would occur under conditions of Ep . The
exception to this is when one is estimating E or evapotranspiration from small stands of vegetation that have different
aerodynamic, surface conductance, or wetness conditions to
their surroundings. In this case, the Ep and current weather
should not be expected to reach an equilibrium.
Another type of feedback concerns the wind velocity
profile immediately above vegetation. Generally, as vegetation roughness increases, especially for dense vegetation,
the wind velocity profile becomes less steep (smaller
change in velocity with height) for several meters above
the vegetation and the average velocity decreases. Allen
and Wright (1997) found wind speed 3 m above 2-m tall
corn (i.e. measured at 5 m above ground surface) to be 30%
lower than wind speed 3 m above clipped grass. Differences between wind speed from standard weather stations
located over short vegetation and wind speed over tall,
dense forest can be even greater. Allen and Wright developed roughness-based translation equations to adjust for the
impact of roughness on wind speed. This effect should be
considered when estimating potential evaporation for specific vegetation.
Because Ep for vegetation only occurs during and for a
few hours following wetting events, in principle, one can
only calculate or estimate Ep using weather data collected
during those times. This is, of course, not very useful for
hydrologic process models that are operated over long,
continuous time periods and that need relatively continuous
measures of an evaporative index to serve as a boundary
condition. Therefore, concessions must be made, since
most weather data are collected over dry terrain or dry

PR

hsa048

Potential evaporation (Ep ) has had a broad range of definitions over the past century. Ep is defined here (and
in Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation, Volume 1) as the
quantity of water evaporated per unit area per unit time from
an idealized extensive free-water surface under existing
atmospheric conditions (Shuttleworth, 1992). This definition can in principle be applied to any surface, including vegetation, having a free-water (saturated) surface.
However, owing to the influence of stomatal resistance
(see Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1), the saturated
condition for vegetation only occurs during and briefly
following rain or sprinkle irrigation events. This creates
a problem befalling the use and measurement of Ep (or
potential evapotranspiration as the process has sometimes been termed when applied to potential evaporation
from vegetation).

possible for specific surface conditions, even given the same

atmospheric conditions.

FS

hsa047

hsa046

HYDROMETEOROLOGY

hsa046
hsa047

hsa044

EVAPORATION MODELING: POTENTIAL

Pan Evaporation

ST

PA

Evaporation from an evaporation pan has been used for

several centuries as an approximate measure of Ep . However, research over the last several decades points to the
need for caution in the use of general pan evaporation data
to estimate lake evaporation or evapotranspiration (ET )
from land. The standard evaporation pan in much of the
world is the USA Class A Pan, which is 1.21 m in diameter and 254 mm deep, constructed of stainless steel, and
placed above a 0.15-m tall open timber framework such
that the top of the pan is about 0.4 m above the surrounding ground level. Two other commonly used pans are the
Russian (Soviet) GGI-3000 (0.3 m2 ) pan and the GGI-20 m2
tank, both placed in the soil with only 0.075 to 0.1 m of
rim above the soil surface. Details are given by the World
Meteorological Organization (1970). Daily pan evaporation
(Epan ) is computed from the change in water storage in the
pan, inputs of precipitation and water added to maintain an
adequate supply.
Owing to differing thermal characteristics between the
pan and large water bodies, Epan tends to overestimate
the total amount of evaporation and distort the seasonal

FS

PR

Three primary, common means to estimate Ep have been

used during the past century. These are (i) pan evaporation
measurement, (ii) an estimate of potential evapotranspiration based on weather data, and (iii) a reference evapotranspiration. Of these three, reference evapotranspiration
(ETref ) has the more practical application. The term evapotranspiration (ET ), developed over the last half-century
(Thornthwaite, 1948), is used as a simplifying concession
to describe the combined vapor fluxes from soil and vegetation. Some scientists argue that evaporation from soil
and evaporation from plants via transpiration both constitute
evaporation, so that only the term evaporation is necessary,
and the use of the term transpiration is redundant. However,
the term ET is useful for efficiency of communication and
visualization, since the use of only the term evaporation
generally requires qualification as evaporation from soil
or evaporation from vegetation leaf surfaces or evaporation of transpired water within leaves, or the sum of
all these processes. For communication efficiency, the sum
of all three of these evaporation components, which constitutes the total flux of vapor from a vegetated surface, is
commonly referred to as ET (if one wishes, one can think
of the term ET as representing evaporation total).

METHODS TO APPROXIMATE POTENTIAL

EVAPORATION

distribution (see Chapter 49, Evaporation from Lakes,

Volume 1). Thus, on a seasonal basis, Ep usually peaks
several months before the peak evaporation of deep lakes.
Early studies in the United States in semiarid to arid
climates revealed a very significant response in Epan to pan
size, but now it is clear that this was primarily the result of
a decreasing effect of local advection with increasing size
of the water surface area. Pruitt and Doorenbos (1977b)
reported almost no difference (4%) between evaporation
from a 0.62-m diameter Russian pan and a 5-m diameter
Russian pan when both were located in a 5-ha irrigated
grass field. On the other hand, at a dry site in Nevada,
evaporation from the smaller Russian pan averaged some
1.6 times that of the larger pan, although when corrected
for the net heat transfer from soil to the pans, a factor of
1.45 resulted (Hounam, 1973).
Young (1947) presented a good discussion of the problem
of local pan environment in relation to estimating lake
evaporation. Later studies in India by Ramdas (1957) and
studies at Prosser, Washington and in California (Pruitt,
1960, 1966; State of California DWR, 1975, 1979) provided
clear evidence that unless the local environment of a
pan was taken into account, the estimation of ET (or
of lake evaporation) was subject to errors of up to 35%.
Pruitt and Doorenbos (1977a) introduced pan factors (kp )
to multiply by Epan for estimating ET from a clipped
grass reference surface and evaporation from shallow water
bodies. These coefficients take into account the effects on
pan evaporation of upwind fetch (both dry and moist),
mean relative humidity, and total daily wind (Doorenbos
and Pruitt, 1977; Jensen et al., 1990; Shuttleworth, 1992;
Allen et al., 1996; FAO, 1998).
Pan maintenance can be challenging. The water level
for a Class A pan must be kept within a range of 0.05
to 0.075 m below the top of the pan. If the pan is protected
from birds, for example, with 12.5-mm (0.5-inch) mesh
screen, kp should be increased 5 to 10 percent (Stanhill,
1962). Pans made of monel metal, or those older galvanized
metal pans, which have lost their original reflectance
characteristics, may need a reduction to kp of up to five
percent. In general, the water should be kept clean, although
turbidity differences appear to produce little difference
in evaporation from Class A pans. There is an obvious
need to avoid contamination by oil-related products. Pans
are generally inoperable during winter when water can
freeze. In some cases, pans are heated; however, the
heat addition increases the Epan above ambient conditions.
Another complicated situation arises when pans are placed
in a small enclosure surrounded by tall crops. The reduced
aerodynamic turbulence over the pan can dramatically
reduce the Epan measurement.
With the challenges in pan operation and maintenance,
and the inability to precisely convert Epan into Ep or even
into a reference ET , and due to expense and difficulties

vegetation and, although techniques are now well developed

(see Chapter 45, Evaporation Measurement, Volume 1),
evaporation is still challenging and costly to measure.

FI

hsa043

3
hsa047

hsa044

HYDROMETEOROLOGY

PR

PA

ST

hsa048

hsa046

FI

hsa045

The term potential evapotranspiration (ETp ) had

widespread usage from the 1940s through the 1970s
(Thornthwaite, 1948; Jensen, 1974), when the term was
used to represent a maximum evaporative index from which
to derive estimates of actual ET (ETa ) from vegetation
(Penman, 1963). However, there are several major,
contrasting definitions for ETp and several challenges
associated with its usage. One of the primary definitions
used for ETp is as the rate of evaporation and transpiration
from a saturated (free-water) vegetated surface so that
the evaporation process occurs at the potential level. In
this definition, ETp is similar to Ep , but applied only to
vegetation. As for Ep , the challenge with the saturated
surface definition for ETp is that the magnitude, although
depending primarily on atmospheric conditions and surface
albedo, varies with the surface characteristics including
aerodynamic roughness (see Chapter 47, Transpiration,
Volume 1 and Chapter 48, Evaporation of Intercepted
Rainfall, Volume 1). Thus, the definition for ETp should
be tied to specific vegetation in regard to height, leaf area,
and roughness. This is done using a predictive equation
such as the PenmanMonteith (introduced as equation (1)
see Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation, Volume 1) with
very small or zero surface resistance and aerodynamic and
radiative properties that fit the vegetation. Also, because
conditions of saturated vegetation occur only for short
periods during and following dewfall, rainfall, or irrigation
by sprinkler, it is difficult to obtain the measurements of
ETp for free-water surface conditions by which to develop
predictive equations.
A second definition for ETp is to relax the requirement of
a free-water surface (i.e. saturated vegetation surface) and
to set ETp equal to the rate of ET expected from relatively
tall, dense, leafy vegetation having dry leaf surface, but
that has relatively high soil-water content, is disease and
stress free, and is therefore transpiring at a rate governed
by nearly maximum leaf and boundary-layer conductances
in conjunction with energy availability. The advantage of
this definition for ETp is that it follows more closely an
upper bound on ET expected from vegetation on nonrainy
days. It is this second definition that was used in papers
and equation developments by Penman (1948, 1963) where
ETp was associated with ET measured from a clipped,
cool-season grass. A challenge with this definition, however, is again the need to define the specific characteristics
and aerodynamic structure of the vegetation representing
ETp . Associated with the definition of the upper bound for

FS

Potential Evapotranspiration

ETp for a specific type of vegetation is the challenge of

defining the value to use for the surface (leaf and canopy)
conductances, which can be shown to vary with environmental factors of solar radiation, relative humidity at
the leaf surface, leaf temperature, soil-water potential and
carbon dioxide concentration (see Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1 and Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation,
Volume 1). In some ways, this second definition of ETp is
the best one to use in hydrologic science, with estimates
based on the PenmanMonteith or multilayer approaches.
However, use of ETref , as discussed later, may be more
consistent and convenient. Also, the feedback between the
defined potential surface and its characteristics and the associated weather measurements should be considered. One
should not mix and match ETp from tall forest vegetation, for example, with weather data collected over a short
grassed surface.
A third definition for ETp , and perhaps the best one
for process modeling, is as the potential ET to expect
from any specific type and condition of vegetation or other
terrestrial surface under conditions of sufficient soil-water
to not inhibit transpiration. This definition, as applied to
vegetation, applies even to conditions of low leaf area, for
example, during initial plant development, and is therefore
synonymous with what is often termed, in agricultural
applications, as potential crop ET (FAO, 1998). The
value for ETp is strongly governed by the relative leaf
area over the surface and leaf conductance properties. Some
definitions for this type of ETp assume a relatively dry
soil surface between plants so that the soil evaporation
component is small. Other definitions (as in FAO usage
FAO, 1998) include a soil evaporation component that can
change daily as soil dries. Actual evaporation (or actual ET)
is modeled as equal to ETp until a point when soil-water
availability in the effective root-zone falls to a level that
can no longer supply water to the plant at the ETp rate
(Hatfield and Allen, 1996).

in automation of pan measurements for electronic data

recording and communication, pans are falling out of
common usage. Use of Epan is generally being replaced by
the use of reference evaporation or reference ET calculated
from weather data.

Reference Evapotranspiration

The definition and use of the term reference evapotranspiration (ETref ) was developed in the 1970s (Wright
and Jensen, 1972; Pruitt and Doorenbos, 1977) to resolve
ambiguities involved in the definition and interpretation
of potential evapotranspiration as noted in the previous section. The reference descriptor points to the use
of a specific type of vegetation or specific definition of
vegetation properties to represent the evaporative index.
Wright and Jensen suggested that maximum ET for nonsaturated conditions may be approximated by ET from a
well-watered reference crop of alfalfa (also called Lucerne)
of a height of at least 0.2 m. Doorenbos and Pruitt described
their ETref (termed ETo ) as the rate of evapotranspiration from an extensive surface of 815 cm tall, green grass

hsa045
hsa048

hsa044

EVAPORATION MODELING: POTENTIAL

hsa045

hsa043

hsa048

FI

ST

PA

hsa045

hsa048

(Rn G) + a cp (es ea )ra


rs
+ 1+
w
ra

(1)

FS

where Rn and G are net radiation and soil heat-flux

densities,  is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure temperature relationship, a is mean air density, cp
is specific heat of air at constant pressure, es ea is the
vapor pressure deficit of air at the reference (weather measurement) height, is the psychrometric constant and w
is density of liquid water.
The PenmanMonteith equation as formulated in equation (1) includes all significant parameters governing energy
exchange and the corresponding latent heat-flux (evapotranspiration) from a uniform expanse of vegetation. Most
of the parameters in equation (1) can be readily measured
or calculated from weather measurements on an hourly
or shorter time basis. Equation (1) is generally capable of
responding to changes in weather and climate in a manner similar to nonstressed, forage, or annual vegetation,
so that it is reasonable to use this equation to represent
ETref conditions.
The ETref value is typically transformed into an estimate
of Eact during modeling by applying a cover coefficient,
crop coefficient, or crop factor (Kc ) that is defined as
the ratio of Eact to ETref . The value for Kc when the
soil surface is dry is strongly related to the fraction of
ground covered by vegetation. Kc is further influenced
by the height (roughness) and leaf structure of vegetation
as well as surface conductance properties. Although the
concept and use of Kc can be unappealing to users who
desire a more theoretical and analytical structure to the
ET estimate, for example, one that applies equation (1)
directly to a specific surface using aerodynamic and surface
properties that are defined and calibrated for example, as
described in (see Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation, Volume 1), the consistent and reproducible behavior of the Kc
and the ability to set upper and lower limits and to estimate general values, based only on visual observation of
vegetation, is appealing. The specific and direct application
of equation (1) to vegetation without Kc and definition of
ETref requires detail of roughness and leaf area properties
over time as vegetation develops, the need to account for
impacts of feedback between surface and boundary layer,
the need to dynamically estimate rs for the soil component as a function of water content and cover, and the

PR

hsa043

For general prediction purposes, the complex aerodynamic

(turbulent) structures within and above vegetation canopies
and the effects of partitioning of net radiation and energy
within the canopies can be described in terms of simple resistances (see Chapter 45, Evaporation Measurement, Volume 1, Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1
and Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation, Volume 1). In the
most simple form, this is accomplished using the linear big
leaf model of Monteith (1965, 1985) where two resistances, surface and aerodynamic, are assumed to operate
in series between leaf interiors and some reference height
above the vegetation. Bulk surface resistance (rs ) is related
to the resistance of vapor flow through individual stomatal
openings (rl ) and total leaf area (see Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1). Aerodynamic resistance (ra ) describes
the resistance to the random, turbulent transfer of vapor
from the vegetation upward to the weather measurement
height, and the corresponding vertical transfer of sensible heat away from or toward the vegetation. The ra term
(and to some degree, the rs term) includes the effects of
diffusive resistance through thin molecular layers along
leaf surfaces, momentum transfer through pressure forces
within the plant canopy, and turbulent transfer among
canopy leaves and above the canopy. The ra is affected
by boundary-layer stability (see Chapter 45, Evaporation
Measurement, Volume 1). The location of the rs and ra
terms as used in the Monteith model are shown in Figure (1)
of (see Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation, Volume 1).

ET =

hsa043

DEFINITION OF REFERENCE ET

Assuming that eddy diffusion transfer factors for

latent heat and sensible heat are the same and that
differences between transfer factors for momentum and
those for heat can be quantified through a simple ratio
(see Chapter 45, Evaporation Measurement, Volume 1),
the PenmanMonteith (PM) form of the combination
equation (Monteith, 1965) takes the form:

cover of uniform height, actively growing, completely shading the ground and not short of water. Subsequently,
this definition specified the grass cover to be a coolseason grass having roughness, density, leaf area, and
canopy resistance characteristics similar to perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) or alta fescue (Festuca arundinacea
Schreb. Alta), since warm-season grass varieties, such as
Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon), exercise considerable control
over transpiration and have lower ETref rates.
The benefit of using the reference concept is the ability
to readily measure and validate reference ET using living, standardized vegetation. In addition, because stomatal
control of the reference surface is intended to approximate
that of most agricultural vegetation, ETref is generally more
similar to actual ET than is Ep . An advantage of using
ETref is that weather data are commonly measured above
standardized weather surfaces that are usually grass or
other short growing vegetation. Hence, the predicted ET
flux is synchronized with the temperature, humidity, and
wind measurements taken over the weather station surface
and reflects the impact of feedback mechanisms between
the vegetation and overlying boundary layer.

hsa048

hsa044

FS

ET Equations to Define ETref

Because of the challenges in growing and maintaining
living reference vegetation, where the LAI and thus the
value for rs can vary between clippings for grass by
nearly a factor of 2, a calibrated ETref equation is now
generally used to represent the hypothetical and fixed
reference. The FAO (Smith et al., 1991, 1996; FAO,
1998) has adopted the PM equation as a standardized
definition for ETo where values for rs , surface albedo,
and aerodynamic roughness are fixed. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 56 defined ETo in terms of the
PM equation as the rate of evapotranspiration from a
hypothetical reference crop with an assumed crop height
of 0.12 m, a fixed surface resistance of 70 s m1 and an
albedo of 0.23, and where the reference surface closely
resembles an extensive surface of green grass of uniform
height, actively growing, completely shading the ground and
with adequate water.

PR

Reference ET is defined as the evapotranspiration from

an extensive surface of reference vegetation having a
standardized, uniform height and that is actively growing,
completely shading the ground, has a dry, but healthy and
dense leaf surface, and is not short of water. This definition
has typically been applied to two common and standardized
reference vegetation types: clipped, cool-season grass and
full-cover alfalfa.

ETr to ETo under extremely arid and windy conditions

(minimum daytime relative humidity (RH) <20% and
wind speed >5 m s1 (11 mph)) and the lower value (1.1)
represents the ratio of ETr to ETo under humid, calm
conditions (Pereira et al., 1999; Wright et al., 2000).
ETr is sometimes preferred over ETo because its larger
roughness and leafiness cause it to better approximate the
upper limit of ET expected from all types of vegetation
(Pereira et al., 1999). However, alfalfa does not grow well
under some tropical conditions and at elevations above
about 2000 m. Cool-season grasses can be cultivated over a
wide range of climates, seasons and elevations, for example,
at 4000 m in Bolivia (Garcia et al., 2004).

Basis for Reference ET

ST

PA

Standardized Definitions
It is generally accepted that the grass reference crop is a
cool-season, C-3 type of grass with roughness, density,
leaf area, and bulk surface resistance characteristics similar
to perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) or alta fescue
(Festuca arundinacea Schreb. Alta). Alfalfa reference
ET , typically abbreviated ETr , was defined by Wright
and Jensen (1972) as: . . . ET from well-watered, actively
growing alfalfa with 8 in. (20 cm) or more of growth. . .
and by Wright (1982) as . . .when the alfalfa crop was
well-watered, actively growing, and at least 30-cm tall; so
that measured ET was essentially at the maximum expected
level for the existing climatic conditions. The height of
alfalfa (Medicago sativa L., vs ranger) in the data set
used to develop surface resistance algorithms for the ASCE
PenmanMonteith application (Jensen et al., 1990) to ETr
ranged from about 0.15 to 0.80 m in height and averaged
0.47 m (Allen et al., 1989).
Generally, alfalfa ETr is about 1.1 to 1.4 times that of
grass ETo due to the increased roughness and leaf area
of alfalfa. The higher value (1.4) represents the ratio of

hsa048

need for a net radiation model specific to the canopy architecture. These needs require relatively complicated, well
tested, and data-populated models such as those by Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985), Shuttleworth and Gurney (1990),
Dolman (1993), and Huntingford et al. (1995). While these
models, if sufficiently calibrated, are capable of producing
more accurate estimates of ETa (see Chapter 47, Transpiration, Volume 1 and Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation,
Volume 1) often, hydrologic model applications do not
warrant the application intensity or time requirements, and
the simple Kc ETref method provides sufficiently accurate
estimates. The Kc ETref approach has greatly simplified the
complexity and amount of information required to predict ETa and has enabled the transfer of values for Kc
between locations and between climates. This has been
a primary reason for the wide acceptance and application
of the Kc ETref approach as a working model that can be
used until more sophisticated methods become available for
direct estimation of actual crop ET . FAO (1998) summarized Kc values for a wide range of agricultural crops and
described means for estimating Kc based on visual descriptions of vegetation.

FI

hsa045

HYDROMETEOROLOGY

PenmanMonteith as a Definition
The PenmanMonteith (PM) equation was introduced in
its full form as equation (1). The PM formulation of the
combination equation incorporates aerodynamic and surface
resistance terms that represent physical characteristics of
the particular reference crop. Aerodynamic resistance in
equation (1) is generally calculated as







zu d
zT,e d
ln
m
ln
h
zom
zoh
ra
k 2 uz

(2)

where zu is the measurement height for wind speed, zT,e is

the measurement height for temperature and vapor pressure, d is the zero-plane displacement height above the
weather measurement surface, zom is the roughness height
for momentum transfer, zoh is the roughness height for
vapor and sensible heat transfer, k is the von Karman constant (0.41), uz is the wind speed at the zu height and m
and h are integrated stability functions for momentum and
sensible heat transfer (more theory on stability is given

Q2

hsa044

EVAPORATION MODELING: POTENTIAL

ST

PA

PR

where ETref applies to both clipped grass and alfalfa

reference surfaces. ETref has units of mm d 1 for 24-h
time steps and mm h1 for hourly time steps, Rn and G are
in MJ m2 d 1 or MJ m2 h1 , T is mean daily or hourly air
temperature ( C), u2 is mean daily or hourly wind speed
at 2-m height (m s1 ), es and ea are in kPa,  and are in
kPa C1 , and Cn and Cd are coefficients that change with
calculation time step, reference type (grass ETo or alfalfa
ETr ), and, in some cases, with time of day. Values for Cn
and Cd are given in Table 1. The values for hourly Cd for
ETo stem from the use of rs = 50 s m1 during daytime
and rs = 200 s m1 during nighttime and the 24-h timestep value for Cd stems from rs = 70 s m1 . For additional
reading on rs for ETo , see Allen et al. (2005b). For ETr ,
the values for hourly Cd stem from the use of rs = 30 s m1
during daytime and rs = 200 s m1 during nighttime and
the 24-h time-step value for Cd stems from rs = 45 s m1 .
The standardized definitions imply heights for the ETo and
ETr surfaces of 0.12 and 0.5 m. Rn can be measured or
estimated. If Rn is estimated, FAO (1998) and ASCE-EWRI
(2004) provide standardized estimation procedures that use
a fixed albedo of 0.23.
The use of the standardized definitions for ETo and ETr
provide for a consistent index of evapotranspiration that

Although useful as a standardized climatic evaporation

index, ETo tends to underpredict maximum ET expected
from tall vegetation such as trees, brush, and tall grasses
like corn and sugar cane when the taller vegetation has
unrestricted access to soil-water. Underprediction can be
as much as 40% in arid climates and is caused by the
close coupling of tall vegetation to the boundary layer.
Some of the underprediction is moderated, however, by the
fact that temperature and humidity of the lower boundary
layer over rough vegetation will be cooler and more humid
under conditions of maximum ET , owing to the more
efficient scalar transport. Unfortunately, this feedback is
generally not taken into account in models when weather
data collected over grass are used to predict ET from
taller vegetation. The taller alfalfa reference overcomes
many of the shortcomings of grass in terms of aerodynamic
roughness, but is less common in some parts of the globe.
Both definitions for ETref (clipped grass and alfalfa)
assume an extensive, well-watered fetch for the evaporating surface as well as for the weather measurement. In arid
settings, air temperature and relative humidity are substantially impacted by absence of an evaporating surface. When
placed into the reference equation (3), data collected over
a dry surface will cause as much as 30% overprediction
of ETref . For further reading, see Allen et al. (1983), Ley
et al. (1996), Jensen et al. (1997), FAO (1998), Temesgen
et al. (1999) and ASCE-EWRI (2004).
One last limitation in the standardized definition for
ETref is that it assumes constant surface resistance and
albedo, regardless of environmental conditions or sun angle,
When net radiation is measured over the reference surface,
sun angle impacts on albedo are taken into account. This
poses a challenge when converting the ETref into actual
ET using some type of Kc under conditions where the
stomatal behavior of the vegetation being modeled varies
substantially during the day.

FS

(3)

Limitations of ETref

ETref =

Cn
u2 (es ea )
T + 273
 + (1 + Cd u2 )

0.408(Rn G) +

is readily compared between climates, locations, and time

periods. The definition, although standardized, is tied to
measurable surfaces, so that the predictive equation (3)
can be compared to local measurements when desired
or necessary.

in Chapter 45, Evaporation Measurement, Volume 1).

Definitions and procedures for calculating stability parameters m and h are available from Brutsaert (1982), Katul
and Parlange (1992) and Allen et al. (1996). Normally, m
and h can be assumed zero for ETref calculations because
the reference surface is well watered so that boundary-layer
stability is close to neutral or only mildly unstable or stable
and values for m and h are small. This simplifies the
calculation process.
Standardized parameterizations of equations (1) and (2)
have been proposed by ASCE-EWRI (2004) for both ETo
and ETr following the format adopted by FAO. When the
supporting parameter equations for ra , a and are reduced
and combined into equation (1), the FAO styled, reduced
equation used by ASCE-EWRI (2004) results

Table 1 Values for Cn and Cd in equation (3) (after ASCE-EWRI, 2004)

Short
reference,
ETo

Tall
reference,
ETr

Calculation time step

Cn

Cd

Cn

Cd

Daily
Hourly during daytime
Hourly during nighttime

900
37
37

0.34
0.24
0.96

1600
66
66

0.38
0.25
1.7

FI

hsa043

Units for
ETo ,
ETr

Units for
Rn , G

mm d 1
mm h1
mm h1

MJ m2 d 1
MJ m2 h1
MJ m2 h1

hsa044

HYDROMETEOROLOGY

QUALITY OF WEATHER DATA

The accuracy and quality of the Ep , ETp , or ETref estimation is only as accurate as the weather data on which it
is based. All E and ET equations require weather or climate data that reflect the environment of the area for which
ET is estimated. Weather data should be screened before
use. This is especially important with electronically collected data, since human oversight and maintenance may
be limited. When weather measurements are determined to
be faulty, they can be adjusted or corrected using a justifiable and defensible procedure, or the user may elect to
replace perceived faulty data with estimates. Simple, visual
procedures for qualifying weather data for use in ET estimation were described by Allen (1996), FAO (1998) and
ASCE-EWRI (2004).

ETo as defined by equation (3) has been applied

within a global weather database by the International Water Management Institute that is published
in the form of a World Climate Atlas (URL =
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/WAtlas/atlas.htm).
This database contains monthly mean weather and ETo
data for the 19611990 period and is useful for providing general ETref inputs for hydrological modeling
of river basins and for extracting climate inputs for
vegetation modeling. Droogers and Allen (2002) investigated the overall quality and populational behavior
of the World Climate Atlas ETo database. A similar, but independent, compilation of mean monthly
weather data including ETo by equation (3) was published by FAO (1993) as the CLIMWAT database (URL =
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/climwat.stm).
The alfalfa ETr has been used as a calibration means
within the METRIC energy balance model (Tasumi et al.,
2005; Allen et al., 2005a) to improve the accuracy of
the ET surface derived from satellite images. ETref is
used to interpolate ET maps between satellite image dates
within the remote sensing surface energy balance algorithm
(SEBAL) (Bastiaanssen et al., 1998) and METRIC, and
other satellite-based energy balance procedures for deriving
actual ET.

in equation (3)) when the PM equation is applied for ETref .

FAO (1998) and ASCE-EWRI (2004) have recommended
limiting wind speed at 2-m height to 0.5 m s1 or greater
when calculating ETref .
With the limitation imposed on wind speed in equation (3) for ETref or with the use of stability correction in
equation (2) when used in equation (1) for Ep or ETp , the
PenmanMonteith method is recommended over the Penman, because the explicit definition for ra via equation (2)
allows users to easily modify ra for changing vegetation
roughness. This modification is not very straightforward
with the wf in the Penman equation.

FS

Use of ETref as an Index

PENMAN VERSUS PENMANMONTEITH

PA

ST

FI

hsa047

PR

The PenmanMonteith equation (1) was an extension to

the original Penman (1948, 1963) equations where a wind
function (wf ) in the aerodynamic term of the numerator
was replaced with ra and the (1 + rs /ra ) term was added
to the denominator. Under free-water surface conditions,
rs tends toward zero, and equation (1) reverts to the
Penman equation, with the exception that ra is used in the
numerator rather than the wf , where generally, wf = a +
b u, where a and b are empirical coefficients and u is wind
speed at some height above the surface (see Chapter 49,
Evaporation from Lakes, Volume 1). In some regards, a
distinct advantage of the wf of the Penman equation is that
it has a lower value (parameter a) when u decreases to
zero or nearly zero. This is not the case for the classical
equations used for ra in the definition for ETref , (for
example, equation (2) when the instability functions, ,
are set to zero), so that ra tends toward infinity as u
decreases toward zero. This behavior for ra is unrealistic, as
under conditions of low wind speed, for example, less than
0.5 m s1 at 2-m height, and Rn G > 0, buoyancy forces
caused by surface heating will play a significant role in
transport of air away from the surface, thereby sustaining
some aerodynamic transport. Thus, there should be some
maximum value for ra (conversely a minimum value for u

USE OF SIMPLIFIED EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS

A large number of empirical methods have been developed

over the last century by scientists and specialists worldwide to estimate E or ET using a variety of climatic
variables. Relationships were often subject to rigorous local
calibrations, but proved to have limited global validity. The
application of equations (1) and (3) requires data for air
temperature (T ), vapor pressure (ea ), net radiation (Rn ) or
solar radiation (Rs ) and wind speed (u). If some of the
required weather data are missing or cannot be calculated,
one must make a choice. Either equation (1) or (3) can be
retained and the missing data estimated using a reliable
technique that keys off other data or historical information, or an empirical equation is used that does not call
for the missing data. Smith et al. (1991), FAO (1998) and
ASCE-EWRI (2004) made strong arguments for utilizing
the same (theoretically valid) ETref equation, regardless of
data availability, and with estimation of missing data. The
basis for the arguments is that one should obtain a more
accurate estimate of E or ET using a theoretically correct method that considers all major factors, even when
one or more factors are best estimates, than one will find

hsa044

EVAPORATION MODELING: POTENTIAL

systems for measurement and are difficult to sustain even

for weather data collection, owing to the importance of
collecting temperature and humidity data that are coincident
to the evaporating surface being modeled. The reference
ET surfaces and definitions, ETo and ETr , for grass and
alfalfa (i.e. short and tall references), are associated with
a different set of problems and challenges when used for
hydrologic modeling. However, the ETref is useful as a
consistent and reproducible climatic index and is generally
synchronized with weather data collected over well-watered
grassed surfaces. The collection and use of pan evaporation
data is losing popularity as improvements in the ETref
definitions become accepted, and owing to the expense and
the difficulty in making accurate automated measurements
of evaporation from pans.

FURTHER READING
Q3

FS

Monteith J.L. (1995) Accommodation between transpiring

vegetation and the convective boundary layer. Journal of
Hydrology, 166, 251 263.

REFERENCES

Allen R.G. (1996) Assessing integrity of weather data for use in

reference evapotranspiration estimation. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 122(2), 97 106.
Allen R.G., Brockway C.E. and Wright J.L. (1983) Weather
station siting and consumptive use estimates. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, 109(2), 134 146.
Allen R.G., Jensen M.E., Wright J.L. and Burman R.D. (1989)
Operational estimates of evapotranspiration. Agronomy Journal,
81, 650 662.
Allen R.G., Pruitt W.O., Businger J.A., Fritschen L.J.,
Jensen M.E. and Quinn F.H. (1996) Evaporation and
transpiration. In ASCE Handbook of Hydrology, Wootton et al.
(Eds.), New York, p. 125 252.
Allen R.G., Pruitt W.O., Wright J.L., Howell T.A., Ventura F.,
Snyder R., Itenfisu D., Steduto P., Berengena J., Baselga J.,
et al. (2005b) Standardized surface resistance for hourly
calculation of reference ETo by the FAO56 Penman-Monteith
method. Agricultural Water Management.
Allen R.G., Tasumi M., Morse A. and Trezza T. (2005a) A
landsat-based energy balance and evapotranspiration model in
western US water rights regulation and planning. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage System.
Allen R.G. and Wright J.L. (1997) Translating wind measurements
from weather stations to agricultural crops. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering-ASCE, 2(1), 26 35.
ASCE-EWRI (2004) The ASCE Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation, Technical Committee report to the
Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American
Society of Civil Engineers from the Task Committee on
Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration, p. 173.

PR

PA

ST

hsa048

CONCLUSIONS

FI

hsa047

when using an empirical method that essentially closes

its eyes to all facets of the missing factor. FAO (1998)
and ASCE-EWRI (2004) proposed general, relatively simple procedures for estimating missing parameters. These
include estimating dewpoint temperature from daily minimum air temperature (less some fixed offset that is a
function of climatic aridity), estimating Rs as a function of
daily maximum and minimum air temperature and extraterrestrial radiation, and estimating missing wind speed using
long-term monthly values characteristic of the area. More
sophisticated weather generation models are available for
estimating missing weather data that preserve some of the
correlation between weather parameters and that preserve
natural random variation (Richardson and Wright, 1984;
Johnson et al., 1996; Nelson, 2004; Meyer et al., 2004).
If empirical methods for ET are to be applied, the four
more popular and perhaps dependable methods are the Hargreaves et al. (1985), the Priestley and Taylor (1972), and
the Makkink (1957) methods. The 1985 Hargreaves equation, which requires only daily maximum and minimum air
temperature data along with calculated extraterrestrial radiation, generally provides relatively dependable estimates
(Droogers and Allen, 2002; Hargreaves and Allen, 2003).
FAO (1998) recommended calibrating the Hargreaves equation against the PM at regional sites, especially if the
climate is subhumid to humid. Garcia et al. (2004) found
the Hargreaves method performed relatively well at two
arid locations near 3800-m elevation in Bolivia, but there
was worse performance at two more humid locations.
As discussed in (see Chapter 49, Evaporation from
Lakes, Volume 1 and Chapter 50, Actual Evaporation,
Volume 1), the PriestleyTaylor method, requiring only
Rs and T , defines an equilibrium E or ET for large
regions having adequate water supply. This implies it
should be used under subhumid to humid conditions.
The multiplier for the PriestleyTaylor method generally
requires enhancement under arid conditions (Jury and
Tanner, 1975; Jones and Kiniry, 1986; Steiner et al., 1991).
The Makkink method, also requiring only Rs and T , can be
used if humidity data are considered to be of poor quality.
Otherwise, one should trust the PM method (equations (1)
and (3)) to produce a more accurate estimate, even in humid
climates where the vapor pressure deficit (es ea in the
PM equation) is at times small. When humidity data are
judged to be poor, one can replace the data with estimates
based on daily minimum air temperature or can retreat to
the empirical methods.

The theoretical concepts of potential evaporation, Ep ,

and potential evapotranspiration, ETp , make them useful
indices and definitions. However, the conditions behind the
terms are generally difficult to sustain within hydrologic

Q4

Q5

Q6

hsa044

10 HYDROMETEOROLOGY

FS

Jury W.A. and Tanner C.B. (1975) Advection modification of

the Priestley and Taylor evapotranspiration formula. Agronomy
Journal, 67, 569 572.
Katul G.G. and Parlange M.B. (1992) Estimation of bare soil
evaporation using skin temperature measurements. Journal of
Hydrology, 132, 91 106.
Ley T.W., Allen R.G. and Hill R.W. (1996) Weather station siting
effects on reference evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration
and Irrigation Scheduling, Proceedings of the International
Conference, ASAE: San Antonio, pp. 727 734.
Makkink G.F. (1957) Testing the Penman formula by means of
lysimeters. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers, 11(3),
277 288.
Meyer C.R., Renschler C. and Vining R.C. (2004) Implementing quality control techniques for random number generators
to improve stochastic weather generators: the CLIGEN experience. 13 th Conference on Applied Climatology, Section 5.7,
American Meteorological Society, p. 5.
Monteith J.L. (1965) Evaporation and the environment. In The
State and Movement of Water in Living Organisms, XIXth
Symposium, Society for Experimental Biology, Cambridge
University Press: Swansea, pp. 205 234.
Monteith J.L. (1985) Evaporation from land surfaces: progress in
analysis and prediction since 1948. Advances in Evapotranspiration, Proceedings of the ASAE Conference on Evapotranspiration, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan: Chicago, pp. 4 12.
Nelson R. (2004) ClimGen climatic data generator users
manual. Department of Biological Systems Engineering,
Washington State University: Pullman.
Penman H.L. (1948) Natural evaporation from open water, bare
soil and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series A, 193, 120 146.
Penman H.L. (1963) Vegetation and Hydrology, Technical
Communication No. 53, Commonwealth Bureau of Soils:
Harpenden, p. 125.
Pereira L., Perrier A., Allen R.G. and Alves I. (1999)
Evapotranspiration: concepts and future trends. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 125(2), 45 51.
Priestley C.H.B. and Taylor R.J. (1972) On the assessment of
surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters.
Monthly Weather Review, 100, 81 92.
Pruitt W.O. (1960) Relation of consumptive use of water to
climate. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 3(l), 9 l3, l7.
Pruitt W.O. (1966) Empirical method of estimating evapotranspiration using primarily evaporation pans. Proceedings of Conference on Evapotranspiration and its Role in Water Resources
Management, ASAE: Chicago, December, pp. 57 61.
Pruitt W.O. and Doorenbos J. (1977a) Background and development of methods to predict reference crop evapotranspiration
(ETo). Appendix II, Crop Water Requirements, Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 24. (rev.), FAO: Rome, pp. 108 119.
Pruitt W.O. and Doorenbos J. (1977b) Empirical calibration, a requisite for evapotranspiration formulae based on daily or longer
mean climatic data? International Round Table Conference on
Evapotranspiration, ICID: Budapest, p. 20.
Ramdas L.A. (1957) Evaporation and potential evapotranspiration
over the Indian sub-continent. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 27(2), l37 l49.

FI

ST

PA

PR

Bastiaanssen W.G.M., Menenti M., Feddes R.A. and Holtslag A.A.M. (1998) A remote sensing surface energy balance
algorithm for land (SEBAL): 1. Formulation. Journal of Hydrology, 212 213, 198 212.
Brutsaert W. (1982) Evaporation into the Atmosphere, D. Reidel
Publishing Company: Dordrecht, p. 300.
Dolman A.J. (1993) A multiple source land surface energy balance
model for use in GCMs. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
65, 2 45.
Doorenbos J. and Pruitt W.O. (1977) Crop Water Requirements,
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, (rev.), FAO: Rome, p.
l44.
Droogers P. and Allen R.G. (2002) Estimating reference
evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions. Irrigation
and Drainage Systems, 16, 33 45.
FAO (1993) CLIMWAT for CROPWAT, Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 49, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Rome, p. 113.
FAO (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing
Crop Water Requirements, Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome, p. 300.
Garcia M., Raes D. and Allen R. (2004) Reference
evapotranspiration in the Bolivian highlands (altiplano).
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 125, 67 82.
Hargreaves G.H. and Allen R.G. (2003) History and evaluation
of the Hargreaves evapotranspiration equation. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 129(1), 53 63.
Hargreaves G.L., Hargreaves G.H. and Riley J.P. (1985)
Agricultural benefits for Senegal river basin. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 111, 113 124.
Hatfield J.L. and Allen R.G. (1996) Evapotranspiration estimates
under deficient water supplies. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 122(5), 301 308.
Hounam C.E. (1973) Comparison between Pan and Lake Evaporation, World Meteorological Organization, 354, Technical
Note 126.
Huntingford C., Allen S.J. and Harding R.J. (1995) An intercomparison of a single and a dual-source vegetation-atmosphere
transfer model applied to transpiration from Sahelian Savannah.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 74, 397 418.
Jensen M.E. (Ed.) (1974) Consumptive use of water and irrigation
water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Division Report,
ASCE, p. 215.
Jensen M.E., Burman R.D. and Allen R.G. (1990) Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements, ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practice No 70, ASCE, p. 350.
Jensen D.T., Hargreaves G.H., Temesgen B. and Allen R.G.
(1997) Computation of ETo under nonideal conditions.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 123(5),
394 400.
Johnson G.L., Hanson C.L., Hardegree S.P. and Ballard E.B.
(1996) Stochastic weather simulation: overview and analysis of
two commonly used models. Journal of Applied Meteorology,
35, 1878 1896.
Jones C.A. and Kiniry J.R. (Eds). (1986) CERES-Maize: A
Simulation Model of Maize Growth and Development, A&M
University Press: College Station.

hsa044

EVAPORATION MODELING: POTENTIAL

FS

Steiner J.L., Howell T.A. and Schneider A.D. (1991) Lysimetric

evaluation of daily potential evaporation models for grain
sorghum. Agronomy Journal, 83, 240 247.
Tasumi M., Allen R.G., Trezza R. and Wright J.L. (2005) Satellitebased energy balance to assess within-population variance of
crop coefficient curves. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering-ASCE, 131, 94 109.
Temesgen B., Allen R.G. and Jensen D.T. (1999) Adjusting
temperature parameters to reflect well-watered conditions.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 125(1),
26 33.
Thornthwaite C.W. (1948) An approach toward a rational
classification of climate. Geographical Review, 38, 55.
World Meteorological Organization (1970) Guide to Hydrometeorological Practices, WMO No. 168.TP.82, WMO:
Geneva.
Wright J.L. (1982) New evapotranspiration crop coefficients.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE, 108(2),
57 74.
Wright J.L., Allen R.G., Howell T.A. (2000) Comparison between
evapotranspiration references and methods. In Proceedings of
the National Irrigation Symposium, Evans R.G., Benham B.L.
and Trooien T.P. (Eds.), ASAE: Phoenix, November 14 16,
2000, p. 251 259.
Wright J.L. and Jensen M.E. (1972) Peak water requirements of
crops in Southern Idaho. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, 96(1), 193 201.
Young A.A. (1947) Evaporation from Water Surfaces in
California, California Department of Public Works, Division
of Water Resources and the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
SCS. Bulletin No. 54, p. 68.

FI

ST

PA

PR

Richardson C.W. and Wright D.A. (1984) WGEN: A Model

for Generating Daily Weather Variables, Agricultural Research
Service, ARS-8, USDA, p. 83.
Shuttleworth W.J. (1992) Evaporation. In Handbook of
Hydrology, Maidmentt D.R. (Ed.), McGraw Hill: New York,
pp. 4.1 4.53.
Shuttleworth W.J. and Gurney R.J. (1990) The theoretical
relationship between foliage temperature and canopy resistance
in sparse crops. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society, 116, 497 519.
Shuttleworth W.J. and Wallace J.S. (1985) Evaporation from
sparse crops - an energy combination theory. Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Meteorological Society, 111, 839 853.
Smith M., Allen R.G., Monteith J.L., Pereira L.S., Perrier A.
and Pruitt W.O. (1991) Report on the Expert Consultation
on Procedures for Revision of FAO Guidelines for Prediction
of Crop Water Requirements, Land and Water Development
Division, United Nations Food and Agriculture Service: Rome.
Smith M., Allen R.G. and Pereira L.S. (1996) Revised
FAO methodology for crop water requirements. Proceedings
International Conference on Evapotranspiration and Irrigation
Scheduling, ASAE: San Antonio, pp. 116 123.
Stanhill G. (1962) The control of field irrigation practice from
measurements of evaporation. Israel Journal of Agricultural
Research, 12, 51 62.
State of California DWR (1975) Vegetative Water use in
California, Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 113-3,
p. 104.
State of California DWR (1979) Evaporation from Water Surfaces
in California, Department of Water Resources Bulletin No.
73 79, p. 163.

11

hsa044

FI

ST

PA

PR

FS

Keywords: evaporation; evapotranspiration; reference evapotranspiration; PenmanMonteith; pan evaporation; feedback; weather

hsa044

QUERIES TO BE ANSWERED BY AUTHOR (SEE MARGINAL MARKS Q..)

IMPORTANT NOTE: You may answer these queries by email. If you prefer, you may print out the PDF, and mark
your corrections and answers directly on the proof at the relevant place. Do NOT mark your corrections on this
query sheet. Please see the proofing instructions for information about how to return your corrections and query
answers.

FI

ST

PA

PR

FS

Q1. As per the style of this encyclopedia, you are requested to provide the department details of your affiliation, if
available.
Q2. As per the style of this encyclopedia, only references that have not been cited in text are put under the section
Further Reading. We have therefore moved the references under this section to the Reference section as they
have been cited in text. Please confirm if this is fine.
Q3. This reference have been moved to Further Reading as it is not cited in text. Please confirm if this fine.
Q4. Please provide the editors forename and also list out all the editors name for this reference.
Q5. Please provide the volume number and page range for this reference.
Q6. Please provide the volume number and page range for this reference.