Abstract
AbstractThree methods of calculating evapotranspiration (ET), Penman–Monteith (PM), Makkink (MK) and Priestley–Taylor (PT) equation, were applied to a temperate meadow in Inner Mongolia, China. We compared these methods with eddy covariance (EC) method. The results indicated that a reduction in mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) was achieved for MK and PT methods (45.6–83.0%) when using site‐specific parameters compared with referenced ones, but an increase of 75.9–93.9% for PM method. Intercomparison of three methods through comparison with EC measurements indicated that PT method with site‐specific parameters performed the best to estimate ET, followed by PM method with referenced parameters, and then MK equation with site‐specific parameters (overestimate ET by 8.2, 12.1, 16.5% and 3.4, 12.8, 21.0% respectively for half‐hourly and daily values).
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.
