Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241

Estimation of mean monthly solar global radiation as a function of temperature

Francisco Mezaa,*, Eduardo Varasb,1
a Departamento b Departamento

de Ciencias de Recursos Naturales, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile de Ingeniera Hidrulica y Ambiental, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santi ago, Chile Received 14 December 1998; received in revised form 11 August 1999; accepted 13 August 1999

Abstract Solar radiation is the primary energy source for all physical and biochemical processes that take place on earth. Energy balances are a key feature of processes such as temperature changes, snow melt, carbon fixation through photosynthesis in plants, evaporation, wind intensity and other biophysical processes. Solar radiation level is sometimes recorded, but generally it needs to be estimated by empirical models based on frequently available meteorological records such as hours of sunshine or temperature. This paper evaluates the behavior of two empirical models based on the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures and compares results with a model based on sunshine hours. This work concludes that empirical models based on temperature have a larger coefficient of determination than the model based on cloud cover for the normal conditions of Chile. These models are easy to use in any location ifthe parameters are correctly adjusted. In addition, probability distribution functions and confidence intervals for solar radiation estimates using stochastic modeling of temperature differences were calculated. 2000 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solar radiation; Temperature; Random variable; Fourier series

1. Introduction In some cases a record of global solar radiation (RG) using instruments such as pyranometers or actinometers is available, however, there are many meteorological stations which do not measure solar radiation, but do register other variables such as precipitation, pressure and temperature. For this reason, this paper eval* Corresponding

author. Fax: 56-2-553-92-31. E-mail addresses: fmeza@puc.cl (F. Meza), evaras@ing.puc.cl (E. Varas). 1 Fax 56-2-686-58-76.

uates proposed mathematical models to estimate solar radiation as a function of temperature differences and compares their performance with models based on sunshine hours. Solar radiation is the principal energy source for physical, biological and chemical processes, such as, snow melt, plant photosynthesis, evaporation, crop growth and is also a variable needed for biophysical models to evaluate risk of forest fires, hydrological simulation models and mathematical models of natural processes. Hence, in many occasions, a record of observed solar radiation or an estimate of radiation is required.

0168-1923/00/$ see front matter 2000 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0168-1923(99)00090-8

232

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241 Table 1 Angstrm coefficients (a and b) recommended for Chilean localities. (Castillo and Santibaez, 1981) Locality Arica Iquique Antofagasta Copiapo Vallenar La Serena La Paloma Quintero Valparaiso Santiago Curico Constitucion Chillan Concepcion Temuco Osorno Puerto Montt Ancud Puerto Aysen Balmaceda Punta Arenas a 0.28 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 b 0.57 0.47 0.47 0.51 0.46 0.57 0.46 0.45 0.55 0.44 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.51 0.47 0.47 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.52 Latitude (S) 18.29 20.13 23.28 27.21 28.35 29.54 30.41 32.47 33.01 33.27 34.58 35.20 36.36 36.47 38.46 40.35 41.28 41.54 45.24 45.54 53.10 Longitude (W) 70.19 70.09 70.20 70.20 70.46 71.15 71.02 71.32 70.38 70.42 71.13 72.26 72.02 73.07 72.39 73.09 72.56 73.48 72.42 71.43 70.54 Altitude (m) 035 008 122 283 469 032 320 002 041 520 227 007 124 009 114 027 110 020 010 520 008

2. Model description Extra-terrestrial solar radiation, also known as Angot radiation (RA, MJ m2 day1) can be calculated as a function of the distance from the sun to earth ( d, km), the mean distance sunearth (dm, km), latitude ( , rad), solar declination (8, rad) and solar angle at sunrise (sunset) (Hs, rad) using the following expression (Romo and Arteaga, 1983):
RA = ( 86400 )( 1360 ) ( d m i r d x [ (H s ) sin sin (8)
2

cos (

cos (8) sin (H s ) ] (1)

Using the preceding relationship, solar radiation can be calculated for any point in the earths outer atmosphere for each day of the year as a function of latitude and solar declination. However, gases and clouds introduce changes to both magnitude and spectral composition of solar radiation. 2.1. Angstrm model, 1924 Since the beginning of the century, efforts have been made to estimate solar radiation as a function of extra-terrestrial solar radiation and the state of the atmosphere (Castillo and Santibez, 1981). The parameter most commonly used is hours of sunshine. Usually, the ratio of global solar radiation to Angot ra-diation is correlated to the ratio of effective sunshine hours to total possible sunshine hours. Effective sunshine hours (n) are measured with a heliograph (Martnez-Lozano et al., 1984). Although this instrument has a threshold, under which sunshine is not recorded, this error is not significant when estimating daily solar radiation. Angstrm (1924), suggested a simple linear relationship to estimate global solar radiation (RG, MJm2 day1) as a function of Angot radiation, actual sunshine hours (n) and potential or theoretical sunshine hours (N).

Monteith (1966), Penman (1948), and Turc (1961) have calibrated this expression for different places. Coefficients can vary significantly as Doorenbos and Pruitt (1975) show. In Chile, Castillo and San-tibez (1981), have recommended the values given in Table 1. 2.2. BristowCampbell model, 1984

Incoming solar radiation is determined by the state of the atmosphere. However, the dynamics of the atmosphere is very difficult to predict. Considering transformations experienced by solar radiation, one can expect to find a relationship to express solar radiation as a function of meteorological variables commonly registered at climatological stations. When solar radiations reaches the earth surface, part of it is reflected and part is absorbed. The same occurs with RG = a+ bn (2) long-wave radiation that each body emits as a RA N function of its temperature. As Chang (1968), reports, Angstrm suggested values of 0.2 and 0.5 for there is usually a good relation between net radiation empirical coefficients a and b respectively. Other and global solar radiation, since the latter one is the authors, such as Bennett (1962), Davies (1965), principal source of energy.

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241

233

Furthermore, if the heat flow towards the soil is neglected, one can find the ratio of sensible heat to latent heat or Bowen ratio, on a daily basis (Campbell, 1977). Sensible heat is responsible for temperature variations, so it is possible to obtain a relationship between temperature differences and solar radiation, being temperature a reflection of radiation balance. Using this argument, Bristow and Campbell (1984), suggested the following relationship for daily RG, as a function of daily RA and the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures (AT, C):

3. Climatic data

In order to compare the behavior of the different models, monthly climatological data of 21 stations representing different climatic regions of Chile were collected. Data ranged from Arica (latitude 18.3S) to Punta Arenas (53.1S) and was registered between the years 1971 and 1992. Selected meteorological variables were TM, Tm, P, mean monthly degree of cloud cover (x) and RG. For the locations mentioned in Table 1, monthly values of maximum and minimum temperatures, cloud RG [ ] = A 1 exp(BAT C) (3) cover and atmospheric pressure for each year in the RA period 1971 to 1992, were available. Unfortunately, for Athough coefficients A, B and C are empirical, global solar radiation only the average value for each they have some physical meaning. Coefficient A month in that period was available and monthly represents the maximum radiation that can be radiation values for each year were impossible to obexpected on a clear day. Coefficients B and C control tain from Direccin Meteorolgica de Chile. the rate at which A is approached as the temperature In addition to the above, data from La Paloma stadifference increases. Values most frequently reported tion was collected to compare the behaviour of models for these coefficients are 0.7 for A, the range 0.004 to based on temperature differences when they are ap0.010 for B and 2.4 for C. plied to estimate monthly global solar radiation. The Since clear days present large temperature differselected meteorological variables in this case were TM, ences A tends to be the ratio between global solar radiTm, P, and RG between the years 1971 and 1978. ation and Angot radiation, hence the sum of Angstrm Finally, data from Santiago station was used to coefficients a and b tends to be similar to A. compare the behaviour of BristowCampbell and Allen models when they are applied to estimate daily 2.3. Allen model, 1997 global solar radiation. The meteorological variables were daily TM, Tm, P, and RG. Allen (1997), suggested the use of a self-calibrating model to estimate mean monthly global solar radiation following the work of Hargreaves and Samani (1982). 4. Models applied to mean monthly data He suggested that the mean daily RG can be estimated as a function of RA, mean monthly maximum(TM, C) The extension of the reviewed models to apply them and minimum temperatures (Tm, C). to monthly averages requires some explanation. The Angstrm model was originally derived for daily solar RG = Kr(TM Tm)0.5 (4) radiation and hours of sunshine. Nonetheless, be-ing a RA linear function it can be readily applied to mean Previously, Allen (1995), had expressed the monthly data since the expected value of a sum is empiri-cal coefficient (Kr) as a function of the ratio of equal to the summation of the expected values. Allens atmo-spheric pressure at the site (P, kPa) and at sea model was derived for monthly data so it can readily level (P0, 101.3kPa) as follows: be used. However, the BristowCampbell model is defined for daily data and has no evident extrapolation to P 0.5 mean monthly values. For this reason, one can ex-pect Kr = Kra (5) P0 to find a new set of coefficients when the same In his work, Allen suggested values of 0.17 for expression is applied to monthly data. interior regions and 0.20 for coastal regions for the With the values of temperature, atmospheric presempirical coefficient Kra. sure and sunshine hours, mean monthly global solar

234

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241 Table 3 Regression between calculated and observed mean monthly global solar radiation using adjusted parameters of 20 Chilean localities Model Angstrm Allen BristowCampbell Slope 0.959 0.999 1.152 Upper limit. (95%) 0.970 1.010 1.170 Lower limit. (95%) 0.939 0.990 1.138 R2

radiation was calculated at each site, using the expressions and empirical coefficients suggested by Angstrm (1924), Bristow and Campbell (1984), and Allen (1995). Results show that models using the coefficients proposed in the literature do not esti-mate correctly the historical average in each location. The slope of the relationship between calculated and observed radiation is significantly different from unity. This is especially notorious in the case of the BristowCampbell model, although this result was ex-pected since the coefficients suggested by the authors are applicable to daily data. Given the results, it was necessary to change the Allen and BristowCampbell model coefficients to obtain a better fit, following the idea suggested by Castillo and Santibez (1981) for the Angstrm model. Least squares coefficients, which minimize the sum of square errors for each location were calculated and included in Table 2. Due to the fact that monthly solar radiation values, were not available for each year, as mentioned in the section about climatic data, the A and C coefficients of BristowCampbell model were assumed fixed and the B coefficient was adjusted to minimize the square
Table 2 Adjusted coefficients models Locality Arica Iquique Antofagasta Copiapo Vallenar La Serena La Paloma Quintero Valparaso Santiago Curico Constitucion Chillan Concepcion Temuco Osorno Puerto Montt Ancud Puerto Aysen Balmaceda Punta Arenas

0.892 0.961 0.928

(Kra

and B) of Allen and BristowCampbell Kra 0.3354 0.2854 0.4717 0.2577 0.3457 0.2697 0.1589 0.2731 0.0114 0.2593 0.4348 0.2423 0.2316 0.3402 0.2583 0.3756 0.3252 0.2820 0.2870 0.3058 0.3471 B 0.01354 0.01619 0.01944 0.00203 0.00200 0.00677 0.00347 0.00589 0.01144 0.00202 0.00152 0.00555 0.00159 0.00242 0.00154 0.00150 0.00290 0.00493 0.00463 0.00348 0.00389

errors. The available data made it impossible to study the contribution of coefficients A and C. However, A represents the maximum radiation on a clear day and its value represents the observed data reasonably well. Moreover, a change in coefficient C does not affect significantly the calculated global solar radiation. Observed and calculated values for different locations and models are shown in Fig. 1. In this figure the improvement in the relationships when using locally calibrated coefficients can be appreciated. The Angstrm model results using the coefficients proposed by Castillo and Santibez (1981) are also included for comparison. Slopes of the different models and the coefficients of determination are given in Table 3. Allens model presents the best relationship. It has a higher coefficient of determination and the slope is equal to unity with 90% confidence interval. The BristowCampbell model tends to under-estimate global solar radiation but explains a large proportion of sample variance. The Angstrm model fit the data poorer than the other two. 4.1. Models applied to monthly data. Since the available data of global solar radiation for most stations is only the average value for each month, it was necessary to examine ifthe relationships with the adjusted coefficients represent accurately the monthly values for each year. One station available with monthly global solar radiation data, is La Paloma. In this case the models with the adjusted coefficients derived with the average monthly values were used to estimate monthly global solar radiation for each year. A comparison between estimated monthly values for La Paloma, compared to observed monthly values is shown in Table 4. Results show that monthly global radiation for each year can be adequately estimated with the derived

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241

235

Fig. 1. (a) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Angstrm parameters from the literature (see text); (b) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Angstrm adjusted parameters; (c) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Allen parameters from the literature; (d) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Allen adjusted parameters; (e) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Bristow-Campbell parameters from the literature; and (f) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using BristowCampbell adjusted parameters.

236

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241

Fig. 1 (Continued).

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241 Table 4 Regression between calculated and observed monthly global solar radiation at La Paloma station Model Allen BristowCampbell Slope 1.000 0.994 Upper limit. (95%) 1.010 1.006 Lower limit. (95%) 0.990 0.982 R2

237

Table 5 Average temperatures (ATi) and Fourier series coefficients C and D of 20 Chilean localities Locality Arica Iquique Antofagasta Copiapo Vallenar La Serena La Paloma Quintero Valparaso Santiago Curico Constitucion Chillan Concepcion Temuco Osorno Puerto Montt Ancud Puerto Aysen Balmaceda

AT
06.344 05.629 06.489 14.545 13.193 07.856 14.143 08.366 05.549 13.917 14.612 08.397 13.802 10.073 11.494 11.031 08.592 07.255 06.823 09.078

C 0.722 0.629 0.269 0.640 1.264 0.220 0.330 0.670 0.804 2.539 4.235 0.723 3.991 2.134 3.052 3.140 1.862 1.636 1.427 2.130

D 1.412 1.162 0.945 0.292 0.177 0.044 0.345 0.495 0.330 1.830 2.851 0.188 2.910 1.365 2.111 1.592 0.773 1.051 0.345 1.151

0.97 0.96

models. Allens model presents the best relationship between observed and calculated monthly solar global radiation because it explains a large proportion of the sample variance. In both models the slope is equal to unity with 90 % confidence interval. This verifies that the models can be used to estimate monthly values for different years. 4.2. Global solar radiation distributionfunctions A probability distribution function for global solar radiation was obtained as a derived distribution, when radiation is expressed as a function of temperature differences and temperature differences are expressed as a Fourier series with a random component. This ran-dom error was found to be a random variable with normal distribution. This hypothesis was tested in both for the BristowCampbell and the Allen models using the AndersonDarling test for normal distribution. Once a distribution model for solar radiation is calculated, confidence intervals for estimates can be computed. 4.3. Temperature difference modelling. Temperature has a marked seasonal variation due to periodicity in the earths orbit about the sun. For this reason temperature variations can be represented using mathematical cyclic functions. In this paper, differences between maximum and minimum temperatures were modelled using a Fourier series once the stationary component was removed, as suggested by Van Wijk and De Vries (1966) and Campbell and Norman (1997). These authors applied Fourier series with one term to represent air temperatures. The AT in location i and monthj (AT j, C) can be expressed as a function of mean annual AT in location i (AT , C), Fourier series coefficients atlocation i (C , D ) and an error or residual in location i and monthj (E j, C) as follows:

AT j = AT + C cos
Punta Arenas 07.019 1.829 0.665

(2irj 12 f2irj)

+D sin

_____ 12

+Ej

(6)

The coefficients C and D are given in Table 5 for the sites used in this work. 4.4. Probability distributionfunctions IfX is a continuous random variable with a probability density functionf(x) and Y is a monotonic function of X, then the probability function of Y can be obtained multiplying the inverse function by the abso-lute value of the Jacobian of the transformation (J) or determinant of the first derivative of w(y) with respect to X (Walpole and Myers, 1992):

g(y) = f[w(y)]|J|

(7)

Using this procedure probability density and probability distribution functions for RG estimated by Allen and BristowCampbell models were derived.

238

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241

4.5. BristowCampbell model In this case the distribution function is calculated using Eq. (3) and replacing Tij for its expression in terms of annual T in each location and the corresponding Fourier series coefficients. Combining both the expressions, an equation for the residuals is obtained. Residuals were found to be well represented by a normal distribution model, so the probability distribution of the errors was assumed known. The distribution hypothesis was tested using AndersonDarling test. The probability density function for solar radiation following Eq. (7), is equal to the product of the normal density function evaluated at the residuals for location i and month j and the absolute value of the transformation Jacobian (Eq. (8)). The residuals are given in this case by Eq. (9) and the first derivative by Eq. (10). g(RGij) = [J]f L(RGij)j (8)

4.6. Allens model Similarly, for Allens model, 1997, the probability density function is obtained using Eq. (4) and replacing Tij for its expression in terms of annual T in

The residuals are given by the following equation expressed as a function of terms already defined:
1/2.4

Eij =

ln ( 1

R G ij / 0 . 7 R A ij ) Bi

122Tj ____ 12 ) The first derivative is:

Cicos

Di sin 122rj 12) (9)

|J| =
1

1\

)6.8 1 /2.4 1

1 1 RGij ))1.4/2.4 ln 0.7RAij R G i j / 0 . 7 R A ij R A i j

1 ______________ (10) The cumulative distribution)1 function (CDF) is obtained by integrating the probability density function. The CDF was evaluated numerically, using very small intervals and the trapezoidal integration method, to define confidence intervals for global solar radia-tion. Results for two locations Arica and Vallenar are shown graphically in Fig. 2 (a,b).

each location and the corresponding Fourier series coefficients (Eq. (6)). Residuals in this case were also found to be well represented by a normal distribution model, so the probability distribution of errors was assumed known. The probability density function for solar radiation is shown in Eq. (8).The residuals are given in this case by Eq. (11) and the first derivative by Eq. (12): ) (R A ij )K ra i (P /P 0 ) 0 . 5 Cicos 1

E ij

RGij

21r 12) Disin 122r 12) The Jacobian is: 2 R G ij (P 0 ) K2ra i(RAij ) P
2

(11)

|J| =

(12)

The CDF is obtained integrating the probability density function. It was evaluated numerically to define confidence intervals for global solar radiation. Results for Arica and Vallenar are shown graphically in Fig. 2(c,d). The expected value for global solar radiation given by the CDF using Allens model are higher than the Angot radiation because the limits of integration derived in this case were zero and infinite. On the other hand, the CDF using BristowCampbell model have clear and defined limits which are zero and A times the Angot radiation. For this reason the CDF obtained with BristowCampbell model is more accurate and has smaller confidence intervals.

5. Models applied to daily data 5.1. Allens model Allens model, 1997 includes a correction term for barometric pressure which in fact represents the altitude of the station above sea level, since the pressure as a function of elevation can be expressed in terms of the pressure at sea level, the temperature gradient, the temperature at station elevation and the Avogadro air constant. This correction term is small compared to the influence of the temperature difference on radiation.

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241

239

Fig. 2. (a) Expected values and confidence limits (5 and 95%) of daily mean global radiation using Bristow-Campbell model and Angot radiation for Arica; (b) Expected value and confidence limits (5 and 95 %) of daily mean global radiation using Bristow-Campbell model and Angot radiation for Vallenar; (c) Expected value and confidence limits (5 and 95 %) of daily mean global radiation using Allen model and Angot radiation for Arica; (d) Expected value and confidence limits (5 and 95%) of daily mean global radiation using Allen model and Angot radiation for Vallenar.

This model tends to over estimate global solar radiation in a daily basis, and frequently estimates radiation in excess of the extra-terrestrial radiation, since the condition expressed by Eq. (13) is fulfilled. This model does not have a limit for the estimated solar radiation.

Even though Allens model has a larger coeffi -cient of determination, the slope is clearly less than unity, indicating that the model over-estimates solar radiation. 5.2. BristowCampbell model This model is defined solely in terms of temperature differences and is thus simpler to apply. The value for A coefficient is 0.7, which is a reasonable value for clear days. This type of day usually is associated to large temperature differences.

P0 (Kra) P
(13) 2 This condition is frequently true when the model is applied to points located in interior regions which usually experience large daily temperature variations.

240

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241

Fig. 2 (Continued).

Table 6 Regression between calculated and observed daily global solar radiation at Santiago station Model Allen BristowCampbell Slope 0.561 1.090 Upper limit. (95%) 0.549 0.979 Lower limit. (95%) 0.571 1.202 R2

6. Conclusions Empirical models to estimate global solar radia-tion are a convenient tool if the parameters can be calibrated for different locations. These models have the advantage of using meteorological data which are commonly available. For Chile, the models proposed by Allen and BristowCampbell are adequate and allow estimates of mean average global solar radiation as a function of air temperature variation. Allens model has a larger coefficient of determination but requires both atmospheric pressure and temperature variation measurements. Models were calibrated for 20 locations in Chile which represent a wide variation in climatic characteristics and hence the procedure described is considered to be

0.85 0.79

The behavior of the BristowCampbell model is more consistent and reliable, since it has an upper limit given by parameter A. The regression analysis shows that the BristowCampbell model performs better (Table 6). On the other hand, BristowCampbell model gives consistently a better estimate when applied to daily data.

F. Meza, E. Varas/Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231 241

241

of general application. Temperature variation can be modelled by Fourier series and confidence intervals for global solar radiation estimates can be obtained using derived distribution procedures. Both the models have limitations when applied to daily data. Solar radiation at locations with large temperature differences are not correctly modelled using Allen procedure and the BristowCampbell model had a better performance. References
Allen, R., 1995. Evaluation of procedures of estimating mean monthly solar radiation from air temperature. FAO, Rome. Allen, R., 1997. Self-calibrating method for estimating solar radiation from air temperature. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2, 5667. Angstrm, A., 1924. Solar and terrestrial radiation. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 50, 121125. Bennett, I., 1962. A method of preparing maps of mean daily global radiation. Arch. Meteorol. Geophys. Bioklimatol Ser. B 13, 216248. Bristow, K., Campbell, G., 1984. On the relationship between incoming solar radiation and daily maximum and minimum temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 31, 159166. Castillo, H., Santibez, F., 1981. Evaluacin de la radiacin solar global y luminosidad en Chile I. Calibracin de frmulas para

estimar radiacin solar global diaria. Agricultura Tcnica 41, 145152. Campbell, G., 1977. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. Springer, New York. Campbell, G., Norman, J., 1997. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. Soils/AOS 532. Pullman WA. Chang, J.-H., 1968. Climate and Agriculture. Aldine Publishing. Chicago. Davies, J.A., 1965. Estimation of insolation for West Africa. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 359363. Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W., 1975. Crop water requierements, Irrigation and drainage paper, 24. FAO, Rome. Hargreaves, G., Samani, Z., 1982. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE. 108, 225230. Martnez-Lozano, J., Tena, F., Onrubia, J., De la Rubia, J., 1984. The historical evolution of Angstrm formula and its modifications: review and bibliography. Agric. For. Meteorol. 33, 109128. Monteith, J.L., 1966. Local differences in the attenuation of solar radiation over Britain. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 92, 254262. Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A. 193, 120145. Romo, J., Arteaga, R., 1983. Meteorologa Aplicada. Universidad Autnoma de Chapingo. 442 pp. Turc, L., 1961. Evaluation des besoins en eau dirrigation. Evapotranspiration potentielle. Ann. Agron. 12, 13 49. Van Wijk, W., De Vries, D., (1966). Physics of Plant Environment, 2nd ed. North-Holland, The Netherlands, 382 pp.