Abstract
The absence of accurate measurement or calculation techniques for crop water requirements in greenhouses frequently results in over- or under-irrigation. In order to find a better method, this study analyzed the accuracy, data consistency and practicability of the Penman–Monteith (PM), Hargreaves–Samani (HS), Pan Evaporation (PAN), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models. Model-calculated crop evapotranspiration (ETC) was compared with lysimeter-measured crop evapotranspiration (ETC) in the National Precision Agriculture Demonstration Station in Beijing, China. The results showed that the actual ETC over the entire experimental period was 176.67 mm. The ETC calculated with the PM, HS, PAN, and ANN model were 146.07 mm, 189.45 mm, 197.03 mm, and 174.7 mm, respectively, which were different from the actual value by −17.32%, 7.23%, 11.52%, and −1.12%, respectively. The order of the calculation accuracy for the four models is as follows: ANN model > PAN model > PM model > HS model. By comprehensively evaluating the statistical indicators of each model, the ANN model was found to have a significantly higher calculation accuracy compared to the other three models. Therefore, the ANN model is recommended for estimating ETC under greenhouse conditions. The PM and PAN models can also be used after improvement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
