Comparison of Empirical Methods to Estimated Reference Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration plays an important role in agricultural water management and crop modelling. Estimating reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) using meteorological variables, both theoretical and empirical methods, is highly recommended considering the availability of weather data in several location...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Fakultas Teknologi Pangan dan Agroindustri Universitas Mataram
2024-09-01
|
| Series: | Jurnal Ilmiah Rekayasa Pertanian dan Biosistem |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jrpb.unram.ac.id/index.php/jrpb/article/view/629 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Evapotranspiration plays an important role in agricultural water management and crop modelling. Estimating reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) using meteorological variables, both theoretical and empirical methods, is highly recommended considering the availability of weather data in several locations. The estimation method recommended as the standard method is FAO Penman Monteith (FAOPM), but due to the limited meteorological data in a region and the difficulty and complexity of FAOPM, it is recommended to use the empirical method which is easier and only requires a few simple meteorological variables. The aim of this research is to compare and evaluated empirical methods for estimating ETo against the FAOPM. The statistical analysis using in this research are RSME, MAE, coefficient Correlation, NSE, Average bias, index of agreement, and confidence index (c). Evaluation for the best models based on statistic analyzed shows that several empirical methods show terrible performance in estimating the monthly average ETo (mm/day), which are Thornthwaite-Mather, Hargraves-Samani, Makkink, Hamon, Romaneko, and Kharauffa. Modified Blaney-Criddle method showed a good performance method, while PMAWS showed very good performance The Turc and Hansen method showed excellent performance with RMSE, MAE, NSE, and C values for the Turc method, are 0.12, 0.11, 0.78, 0.92 respectively, and for the Hansen method are 0.12, 0.1, 0.8, and 0.89 respectively. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2301-8119 2443-1354 |