Abstract

Abstract. Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is the water that would be lost by plants through evaporation and transpiration if water was not limited in the soil, and it is commonly used in conceptual hydrological modelling in the calculation of runoff production and hence river discharge. Future changes of PET are likely to be as important as changes in precipitation patterns in determining changes in river flows. However PET is not calculated routinely by climate models so it must be derived independently when the impact of climate change on river flow is to be assessed. This paper compares PET estimates from 12 equations of different complexity, driven by the Hadley Centre's HadRM3-Q0 model outputs representative of 1961–1990, with MORECS PET, a product used as reference PET in Great Britain. The results show that the FAO56 version of the Penman–Monteith equations reproduces best the spatial and seasonal variability of MORECS PET across GB when driven by HadRM3-Q0 estimates of relative humidity, total cloud, wind speed and linearly bias-corrected mean surface temperature. This suggests that potential biases in HadRM3-Q0 climate do not result in significant biases when the physically based FAO56 equations are used. Percentage changes in PET between the 1961–1990 and 2041–2070 time slices were also calculated for each of the 12 PET equations from HadRM3-Q0. Results show a large variation in the magnitude (and sometimes direction) of changes estimated from different PET equations, with Turc, Jensen–Haise and calibrated Blaney–Criddle methods systematically projecting the largest increases across GB for all months and Priestley–Taylor, Makkink, and Thornthwaite showing the smallest changes. We recommend the use of the FAO56 equation as, when driven by HadRM3-Q0 climate data, this best reproduces the reference MORECS PET across Great Britain for the reference period of 1961–1990. Further, the future changes of PET estimated by FAO56 are within the range of uncertainty defined by the ensemble of 12 PET equations. The changes show a clear northwest–southeast gradient of PET increase with largest (smallest) changes in the northwest in January (July and October) respectively. However, the range in magnitude of PET changes due to the choice of PET method shown in this study for Great Britain suggests that PET uncertainty is a challenge facing the assessment of climate change impact on hydrology mostly ignored up to now.

Highlights

  • Introduction and backgroundEvaporation occurs when water is converted from a liquid state into a vapour state

  • Because Meteorological Office Rainfall and Evaporation Calculation System (MORECS)-potential evapotranspiration (PET) has been found to result in adequate calibration of conceptual hydrological models, we aim to find a method that can reproduce the spatial and seasonal variability described by MORECSPET when using climate data from global or regional climate models (RCMs) so that the impact of climate change on river flow can be assessed

  • This study shows that, for Great Britain, the combination equations of FAO56 (Allen et al, 1998) and modified Penman– Monteith (Kay et al, 2003) used with HadRM3-Q0 climate as input closely reproduce the spatial variability of MORECS mean monthly PET calculated between 1961 and 1990, suggesting that HadRM3-Q0 reproduces the climate drivers of evaporative processes with sufficient accuracy for physically based PET equations to be used

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Introduction and backgroundEvaporation occurs when water is converted from a liquid state into a vapour state. The rate of evaporation is controlled by the availability of energy at the evaporating surface and the ease with which water vapour can diffuse into the atmosphere (Allen et al, 1998; Shuttleworth, 1993). Evapotranspiration is limited by soil water availability, radiation (in terms of energy and photosynthetically active radiation) and the Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. When soil moisture is not a limiting factor, evapotranspiration can take place at the maximum possible rate determined by the environmental conditions; this is termed potential evapotranspiration (PET). In most environments soil moisture has a limiting effect on transpiration, causing plant stress and the onset of water-saving mechanisms such as stomatal closure, and the real loss of water to the atmosphere is termed actual evapotranspiration (AE). Plants can only transpire the water available to them so AE can vary from 0 (no water available) to a maximum equal to the PET

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call