Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Similarity and difference of potential evapotranspiration and reference crop T

evapotranspiration – a review
Keyu Xianga,b, Yi Lia,c,*, Robert Hortond, Hao Fenge
a
College of Water Resources and Architecture Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling Shaanxi, 712100, PR China
b
Farmland Irrigation Research Institute, CAAS / Key Laboratory of High-efficient and Safe Utilization of Agriculture Water Resources, Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences, PR China
c
Key Lab of Agricultural Water and Soil Engineering of Education Ministry, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, PR China
d
Agronomy Department, Iowa State University, Ames, 50011, USA
e
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, 712100, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Potential evapotranspiration (ETp) and reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) differ in their developments,
Potential evapotranspiration concepts, equations and application fields, however, many researchers have mixed the utilization of the two
Reference crop evapotranspiration terms. Thus, it is necessary to clarify the terms to guide their proper usage. The aim of this study is to provide a
temperature-based comprehensive review of the concepts, developments, equations and applications of ETp and ETo. The review
radiation-based
shows clearly that the concepts and developments of ETp and ETo have long histories. The original concept of ETp
combination-based
was proposed by Thornthwaite, and that core idea with various improvements has been used up to now. The
development of ETo, although initially confused with that of ETp, was formally defined as a standard method.
The ETp equations were classified as mass-transfer-based, temperature-based, radiation-based and combination
types. While the ETo equations were classified as being temperature-based, radiation-based, combination and
pan-evaporation-based. Both terms are connected to evaporation and evapotranspiration, and although there
have been ambiguities, ETp has been applied mostly in hydrology, meteorology and climatology, while ETo has
been applied mostly in agronomy, agriculture, irrigation and ecology. ETp has been used to estimate drought
indices, and ETo has been used in the single and dual crop coefficient methods and the Shuttleworth-Wallace
method for estimating actual field evapotranspiration. This review serves to clarify the origins, definitions, and
uses of ETp and ETo. It addresses common ambiguities between the terms in order to aid the proper utilization of
the terms.

1. Introduction
Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) is an important component of the
water balance, and it is used widely in many fields such as agronomy,
hydrology, climatology, meteorology, ecology and environmental sci-
ence (Liu et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2019; Tasumi, 2019; McMahon et al.,
2013). Two closely related concepts are potential evapotranspiration
(ETp) and reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). Although both ETp
and ETo provide estimates of atmospheric evaporative demand, they are
based on different concepts and have different equations which can
help to differentiate the terms. Till present, the utilization and
application of ETp and ETo have been confused for decades. Some re-
searchers clearly distinguished the two terms (Yates and Strzepek,
1994; Allen et al., 1998; Irmak and Haman, 2003; Peng et al., 2017),
but others treated ETp and ETo as identical concepts and used similar
equations for their estimations (Tanner and Pelton, 1960; Xu and Singh,
2002; Mardikis et al., 2005; Vicente-Serrano et al., 2010; Dinpashoh
et al., 2011). One typical example is that Hargreaves and Samani
(1982) using “potential” while Hargreaves and Samani (1985) used the
term “reference crop”. Thus, there is a necessity to clarify ETp and ETo
and reduce the ambiguity in using the terms.
Early applications of ETp were in meteorology and hydrology, but

Abbreviations: E, Evaporation; Ep, Potential evaporation; ET, Evapotranspiration; ETa, Actual evapotranspiration; ETp, Potential evapotranspiration; ETo, Reference
crop evapotranspiration; ETc, Crop evapotranspiration; RMSE, Root mean square error; St.D, Standard deviation; MBE, Mean bias error; R2, Coefficient of de-
termination; PE, Percent error
⁎
Corresponding author at: College of Water Resources and Architecture Engineering, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100,
PR China.
E-mail address: liyi@nwsuaf.edu.cn (Y. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106043
Received 27 August 2019; Received in revised form 21 January 2020; Accepted 22 January 2020
0378-3774/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.
K. Xiang, et al.
later its applications were extended to other fields (Parajuli et al., 2019;
Zhang et al., 2019a, b). For example, in agronomy it was related to crop
water requirements and irrigation scheduling (Yao et al., 2020; Feng
et al., 2019). Due to vagueness in the definition, ETp was not always
applied properly. Development of the concept of ETo helped to solve
some ETp misapplication problems, because agronomists began to use
the concept of ETo in irrigation scheduling, design and estimation of
crop evapotranspiration (ETc) by connecting single or dual crop coef-
ficient method s specifically (Sammis et al., 1985; Bausch and Neale,
1987; Allen et al., 1998; Gong et al., 2019).
There has not been a review to clearly differentiate ETp and ETo.
Thus, in this paper, differences in the concepts and developments,
frequently-used equations, and the applications of ETp and ETo are
systematically reviewed and differentiated. This research provides
useful references and clarifies the concepts to guide researchers on
properly differentiating ETp and ETo in their future investigations.
2. The concept and development of potential and reference crop
evapotranspiration
2.1. Evaporation
Originally, evaporation (E) was used to obtain ETa. As to its esti-
mation, the Dalton types of equations have been the mainstream for-
mulas. According to Dalton (1802), windspeed and humidity are major
factors that influence the rate of E, and an open water evaporation
(mm) formula has been established (Livingston, 1909):
E=c(a+bu)(es- ea)
Where es is saturated vapor pressure, kPa; ea is actual vapor pressure,
kPa; u is wind speed, m•s-1; a, b and c are empirical coefficients.
Equation (1) is simple and has been widely accepted. Later it was
extended or modified to produce a variety of Dalton (mass- transfer)
type equations, for example by Fitzgerald (1886), Trabert (1896),
Meyer (1915), Meyer (1926), Horton (1919) and Rohwer (1931)
(Table 1). The modifications improved the accuracy of estimating E.
However, the core part of E had not been touched and could not be
explained clearly. Vapor pressure and wind speed do influence E, but
not exclusively. The concept of E gradually extended into various kinds
of evaporation from ranges of study areas, including soil surface eva-
poration, open water evaporation, and vegetation transpiration.
From the 1940s researchers realized that it was insufficient to
simply limit their research to E. Water vapor is produced not only on
the ground and water surfaces, but also from the transpiring plants.
Penman (1948) pointed out that “surface energy” had a big impact on
E. Penman (1948) studied E of different surfaces (open water, bare soil
and grass), included energy balance for the first time, and further de-
veloped the mechanisms of Dalton’s theory but not the concepts.
Table 1
Dalton (mass-transfer) type equations for open water evaporation (presented
chronologically).
Proposed by Equation Timescale Number of
citations
Dalton (1802) E=(0.3648 + 0.07223u)(es-ea) Monthly 174
Fitzgerald E=(0.4 + 0.199u)(es-ea) Monthly 41
(1886)
Trabert (1896) E = 0.3075 u0.5(es-ea) Monthly 54
Meyer (1915) E = 11(1 + 0.1u)(es-ea) Monthly 88
Horton (1919) E = 0.4(2-exp-2u)(es-ea) Monthly 499
Meyer (1926) E=(0.375 + 0.05u)(es-ea) Monthly 116
Rohwer (1931) E = 0.47(1 + 0.27u)(es-ea) Monthly 258
The number of citations is obtained from the website of Google Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com), similar below.
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
2.2. Potential evapotranspiration
The development of potential evapotranspiration (ETp) endured for
several decades. To distinguish it from ETa, the term “potential eva-
potranspiration” was first put forward by Thornthwaite (1948) after
investigating the rainfall and water consumptive use for several states
in the USA. ETp represents the atmospheric evaporation demand,
namely the amount of water that can be transferred to the air from land
or water, means “the combined evaporation from the soil surface and
transpiration from plants, represents the transport of water from the
earth back to the atmosphere, the reverse of precipitation
(Thornthwaite, 1948).” It is the maximum value of E that would occur
under ideal conditions. The initial aim is to decide whether the study
area is dry using an aridity index (AI) that incorporates ETp (AI= P/
ETp-1)(where P donates, precipitation) (Thornthwaite, 1948), where
the negative/positive AI value means dry/wet. This AI-based index has
been applied extensively till the present in drought related research
(Huo et al., 2013; Zarch et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017).
Penman (1948) gave a new formula to calculate the evaopration
from different surfaces after several years’ experiments at Rothamsted
Experimental Station, however, he did not mention the terms “poten-
tial” or “evapotranspiration” in his paper. He only mentioned “eva-
poration”. Several years later, Penman (1956, 1963) provided a new
concept to discuss the water consumed through vegetation called “po-
tential transpiration”, which was “a measure of the transpiration rate
from an extensive short green cover completely shading the ground and
adequately supplied with water.” This description was referenced and
redefined many times. For example, Anon (1956) defined it as “the rate
of water vapor loss from a short grass canopy under the following
(1)
conditions: grown in a large surface, during an active growth stage,
completely covering the soil, of homogeneous height, in optimal water
and nutritional status,” and the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) (1963) defined it as “the quantity of water vapor which could
be emitted by a surface of pure water, per unit surface area and unit
time, under the existing atmospheric conditions.” These descriptions,
along with a new term “potential evaporation (Ep)”, were similar to the
Penman (1956, 1963) definition but had more specific requirements for
vegetations. Somehow, the term Ep was mixed up with ETp given by
Thornthwaite (1948) and used as such till now (Choudhury, 1997;
Vörösmarty et al., 1998; Donohue et al., 2010), therefore, the estima-
tion methods of both concepts were confused, too.
One specific term, which was suitable for descriptions given above,
was called “crop potential evapotranspiration”, which was proposed by
Jensen (1968), and defined as “the rate of evapotranspiration for a
given crop at a given stage of growth when water is not limiting and
other factors such as insects, diseases, and nutrients have not materially
restricted plant development.” This definition considered the limita-
tions that could influence evapotranspiration, such as the evaporating
surface and crop growth conditions. As a supplement to the definition,
differences among several crops under different growing conditions
were provided by Jensen (1968). However, this concept is rather
complex, and not enough information is available for enough crops to
address global ET, and he also defined ETp in his paper as “the upper
limit of evapotranspiration that occurs with a well-watered agricultural
crop that has an aerodynamically rough surface such as alfalfa with 30-
50 cm of top growth”, so as to establish the relationship between ETp
and ETc with a term called “crop coefficient (Kc)” (Van Wijk and de
Vries, 1954). In fact, both from the description and the calculation
procedure, the concept is more like the pre-definition of ETo. This is the
first description of ETp in agronomy, which is obviously different from
the meaning of ETp coined by Thornthwaite (1948) and used popularly.
For example, Dingman (1992) gave a description of ETp, namely “the
rate at which evapotranspiration would occur from a large area com-
pletely and uniformly covered with growing vegetation which has ac-
cess to an unlimited supply of soil water, and without advection or
heating effects.” Apparently, this description summarizes the ideal
2
K. Xiang, et al.
conditions which can allow the amount of water escaping from a crop
to reach the maximum, in other words, it gets to the “potential” level.
From the different descriptions of ETp given above, the similarity of
the concepts appeared after Penman (1956) coined the term “potential
transpiration”. They were all descriptions that related to ETc and in-
cluded some limitations on the crop growth conditions or the eva-
poration/transpiration surfaces. Obviously, they were different from
the original aim of ETp which was given by Thornthwaite (1948). The
original aim of ETp was to represent the water demand or maximum
water at large scale regions, and ET was the actual amount of water
evaporated from the entire region. Several later-proposed new concepts
of ETp focused on the vegetation or crops with small surfaces, under this
premise, ETp inevitably meant the quantity or vapor rate of water es-
cape only from leaves. It was essential to study the water change among
different plants by using a specific term, but it was also necessary to
assure that the term used was unique instead of having multiple
meanings, therefore, inventing a new term to differentiate from ETp was
imperative.
2.3. Reference crop evapotranspiration
The reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) term was proposed
concerning the evaporating surfaces and other factors which could in-
fluence the rate of ETc (Jensen et al., 1971; Wright and Jensen, 1972;
Jensen, 1974). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations summarized the studies about crop water requirements
and defined ETo as “the rate of evapotranspiration from an extensive
surface of 8 to 15 cm tall, green grass cover of uniform height, actively
growing, completely shading the ground and not short of water”
(Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977), where reference crop was an ideal crop
and represented one specific kind of surface. Grass and alfalfa were
selected as short and tall reference crops initially, although other dif-
ferent grasses could be considered such as ryegrass or fescue (Marsh
et al., 1980; Biran et al., 1981; Frank, 1981; Beard, 1985; Snyder et al.,
1987). Nevertheless, alfalfa is difficult to grow in some tropical climates
or regions that have severely cold winter temperatures, it is therefore
difficult to define a specific cultivar of alfalfa which will grow effec-
tively worldwide in order to provide local validation of alfalfa ETo
methods (Allen et al., 1989).
Allen et al. (1994b) reports that the ratio of alfalfa to grass ETc
estimated values is 1.37, therefore, the accuracy of ETo calculations is
related to crop types. Besides variety of crops, the situation of crop
growth is also required for the ETc determination. For example, the
height of vegetation surrounding a lysimeter must be identical to that of
the vegetation in the lysimeter (Van Bavel et al., 1963; Perrier et al.,
1974; Meyer et al., 1990; Allen and Pruitt, 1991; Pruitt, 1991). From
this point of view, it may be inappropriate to take natural vegetation as
a reference crop. Allen et al. (1994b) suggested a new definition of ETo
that used a constant value of surface resistance could avoid the varia-
tions of other relevant climatic variables that counteracted one another
in many situations. The selection of constant height and surface re-
sistance parameters was a compromise that might not represent reality
in all climatic regimes, and the fixed surface resistance implied a
moderately dry soil surface resulting from about a weekly irrigation
frequency (Allen et al., 1998). Later FAO adopted this ETo concept
formally in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.56 (Allen et al.,
Table 2
The mass-transfer-based equations for estimating ETp (presented chronologically)
Proposed by Equation
Albrecht (1950) ETp=(0.1005 + 0.297u)(es-ea)
Harbeck et al. (1954) ETp = 0.057u(es-ea)
Kuzmin (1957) ETp = 6(1 + 0.21u)(es-ea)
Brockamp and Wenner (1963) ETp = 0.543 u0.456(es-ea)
Mahringer (1970) ETp = 2.86 u0.5(es-ea)
3
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
1998), and described the new definition clearly as “the rate of evapo-
transpiration from a hypothetic crop with an assumed crop height
(12 cm) and a fixed surface resistance (70 s/m) and albedo (0.23) which
would closely resemble evapotranspiration from an extensive surface of
green grass cover of uniform height, actively growing, completely
shading the ground and not short of water.” Hereafter it is denoted as
FAO56 ETo.
Based on the relatively strict FAO56 ETo definition, the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) added another “alfalfa” as the re-
ference crop, described as a tall crop with an approximate height of
0.5 m. There are two evaporation surfaces with different canopy re-
sistance, aerodynamic resistance and timescale for the tall and short
reference crops (Walter et al., 2000). Hereafter it is denoted as ASCE
ETo.
Obviously, the definition of ETo is clearer and more specific than
ETp, since to distinguish ET of plants from a large region is one of the
major objectives of ETo. With special and ideal constraints of plant
conditions and the estimating equation, it is convenient to estimate the
amount of water evaporating from crop and vegetation surfaces, helpful
to solve water requirement issues, and to provide useful irrigation plan
information for agronomists and farmers.
3. Equations for estimating ETp and ETo
3.1. The classification of ETp and ETo equation types
Besides the ambiguities in the concepts and developments between
ETp and ETo, the biggest confusion involves the equations that are used
to estimate ETp and ETo. Although a number of equations for computing
ETo or ETp have been developed, the formula types are not clearly
classified.
Singh and Xu generalize and propose some simple classification
rules for equations used in systematic studies and were used popularly
(Tabari et al., 2011; Djaman et al., 2018b; Song et al., 2019). They
conclude that the mass-transfer (aerodynamic) based methods utilize
the concept of eddy motion transfer of water vapor from an evaporating
surface to the atmosphere (Singh and Xu, 1997), the estimation
methods requiring only temperature as an input variable be considered
as temperature-based methods (Xu and Singh, 2001), and the empirical
radiation-based equations for estimating Ep generally are based on the
energy balance (Xu and Singh, 2000). As for combination-based equa-
tions, they take both aerodynamic theory and energy balance into ac-
count (Penman, 1948).
In this paper, according to the previous classification, the ETp
equations are classified as being Dalton (mass-transfer) based, tem-
perature-based, radiation-based, and combination types. While the
equations of ETo are classified as being temperature-based, radiation-
based, pan evaporation-based and combination types. The different
types of ETp and ETo equations will be further examined, moreover,
large number of models also are given to provide accurate ways to
estimate them (McMahon et al., 2016).
3.2. Equations for estimating ETp
3.2.1. Mass-transfer type of ETp equations
The mass-transfer type of ETp equations originated from the Dalton
Timescale Number of citations
Daily 78
Monthly 109
Monthly 22
Daily 22
Monthly 58
K. Xiang, et al. Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043

type equations of E and were similar in form (Table 2). These equations
played important roles several decades ago in investigating variations
and patterns of ETp. The application of this type of ETp equation clearly
showed the ambiguity between ETp and E during the early stages of ETp
studies.
The mass-transfer-based equations from the 1950s to 1970s that
have been applied frequently are presented in Table 2.
The mass-transfer-based ETp equations were compared with other
ETp (or ETo) methods by several researchers. For example, Tabari and
Talaee (2011) compared the Albrecht (1950) equation with 30 different
equations including the FAO56 Penman-Monteith equation (which,
strictly speaking, is for estimating ETo) and pan evaporation for a
humid climate. It was found that the Albrecht (1950) equation did not
perform well when compared to other equations. However, the per-
formance of the Albrecht (1950) equation improved when it was
compared with the Brockamp and Wenner (1963) equation for a humid
climate (Djaman et al., 2016; Muniandy et al., 2016).
When the meteorological data were lacking, these equations were
useful to roughly estimate ETp once the parameters were adjusted (Rim,
2000; Azhar and Perera, 2010; Zhai et al., 2010; Jakimavičius et al.,
2013; Valipour, 2014). However, most of the mass transfer-based ETp
equations have been abandoned, because the inherent mechanisms
were quite different from those used in the current understanding of
ETp, and the results estimated with these equations had large deviations
(Bormann, 2011).
3.2.2. Temperature -based type of ETp equations
The temperature-based ETp equations date back to the 1920s
(Jensen et al., 1990), and they are some of the earliest methods for
estimating evapotranspiration (Xu and Singh, 2001). Thornthwaite
(1948) proposed a temperature-based ETp equation after comparing the
relationship between precipitation, temperature and water change in
several states of the United States. Since then, additional temperature-
based ETp equation were proposed and applied. The temperature-based
type of ETp equations, which have been applied extensively in the
world, are presented in Table 3.
The Thornthwaite (1948) equation is used and cited worldwide
(9386 citations), because it is simple and has the least data requirement
(Camargo et al., 1999; Bautista et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2018; Pereira
and Pruitt, 2004). It has also been compared with other equations by
several researchers. For example, Niaghi et al. (2013) compare the
Thornthwaite (1948) equation with several other equations in north-
western Iran, where the terrestrial climate has mild, dry summers and
cold, snowy winters. Valipour et al. (2017) analyzed 16 different
equations including the Thornthwaite (1948) equation at 18 weather
stations in Iran under various climate conditions including arid, semi-
arid, very humid and Mediterranean. The Thornthwaite (1948) equa-
tion generally underestimates ETp in the study regions, and linear
regression does not improve its performance. Sentelhas et al. (2010)
also report that the Thornthwaite (1948) equation underestimates ETp
in humid areas. The Thornthwaite (1948) equation is originally used for
estimating ETp, but later researchers used it also for computing ETo
(Ahmadi and Fooladmand, 2008; Bautista et al., 2009). This confusion
in use should be clarified, because the background and the concept
reflected by Thornthwaite (1948) does not fit ETo (Pereira and Pruitt,
2004; Moeletsi et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2018).
The Blaney and Criddle (1950) equation has also been frequently
used (1031 citations) for estimating ETp, because it has generally good
performance and easy data acquisition (Tabari et al., 2011; Rácz et al.,
2013). Its original development is for humid areas where the advective
effect is usually negligible (Ali and Shui, 2009). Applications of the
Blaney and Criddle (1950) equation in various climates are given in
Table 4. Large differences in performance are found for different study
areas or climate zones. This variability in performance is not unique to
the Blaney and Criddle (1950) equation. It is common for other equa-
tions when applied to a wide range of climate areas and conditions.
In addition to studies on the Thornthwaite (1948) and Blaney and
Criddle (1950) equations, the performances of other temperature-based
ETp equations were also investigated. For example, Liu et al. (2017)
compared the McCloud (1955) and Hamon (1960) equations with ly-
simeter data at Xiaotangshan, a semi-arid area in China. Muniandy
et al. (2016) compared the Hamon (1960), Schendel (1967) and
Romanenko (1961) equations with pan evaporation in humid areas of
Malaysia and found that the Schendel (1967) equation had the worst
performance among 26 different equations, while the Szász (1973)
equation performed the best among the temperature-based type equa-
tions.
In general, the applications of the McCloud (1955), Hamon (1960),
Romanenko (1961), Baier and Robertson (1965), Schendel (1967), and
Szász (1973) equations were much fewer than the Thornthwaite (1948)
and Blaney and Criddle (1950) equations. Some of them were aban-
doned generally with bad performance and unreasonable or insufficient
meteorological variables, such as Szász (1973) and McCloud (1955).
3.2.3. Radiation-based type of ETp equations
The radiation-based type of ETp equations revealed the empirical
relationship between the radiation and ETp. The radiation-based
equations could be looked upon as simplified forms of the Penman
(1948) equation, and reasonably reliable estimates were expected for
short periods (Jensen and Haise, 1963). Some popularly used radiation-
based ETp equations are presented in Table 5.
Among the radiation-based ETp equations, the Priestley and Taylor
(1972) equation has been applied throughout the world (5645 citations,
ranking first among the radiation-based ETp equations). The Priestley
and Taylor (1972) equation was derived for saturated conditions and
open water sites where wind effects were negligible. The wind function

Table 3
Some popularly used temperature-based equations for estimating ETp (presented chronologically)
Proposed by Equation Time scale Number of citations

a1
Thornthwaite (1948) ETp = 16Nm[(10Tm) ] Monthly 9386
Blaney and Criddle (1950) ETp=a2+b(0.46Ta+8.13)(1 + 0.0001Z) Monthly 1031
McCloud (1955) ETp = 0.254 × 1.071.8Ta Daily 39
Hamon (1960) ETp = 0.55N2Pt Daily/Monthly 828
Romanenko (1961) ETp = 0.0018(25+Ta)2(100-RH) Daily 76
Baier and Robertson (1965) ETp = 0.157Tmax+0.158Td+0.109Ra-5.39 Daily 244
Schendel (1967) ETp=(16Ta)/RH Daily 29
Szász (1973) ETp = 0.00536(Ta+21)2(1+RH)2/3(0.519u2+0.905) Monthly 4
Hargreaves (1975) ETp = 0.0135Rs(Ta+17.8) Daily/Monthly 274

Note： I = ∑ im = ∑ (Tm/5)1.5 , m = 1, 2,…, 12, a1 = 6.7 × 10-7×I3-7.7 × 10-5×I2+1.8 × 10-2×I+0.49; Tm is monthly average temperature, ℃; a2 = 0.0043RHmin-
n×N-1-1.41, b = 0.82-0.41RHmin+1.07 nN-1+0.66u2-0.006RHminnN-1 -0.0006RHminu2; RHmin is minimum relative humidity, %; Nm is monthly duration of sunshine,
hour; n is actual duration of sunshine, hour; N is maximum possible duration of sunshine or daylight hours, hour; Pt is saturated vapor concentration at the mean
temperature, kPa•℃-1; Ta = 0.5 (Tmax+Tmin), Tmax is maximum air temperature, ℃; Tmin is minimum air temperature, ℃; Td=Tmax-Tmin, ℃; Ra is extraterrestrial
radiation, MJ•m-2•day-1; u2 means wind speed at 2 m height, m•s-1; Z is elevation, m

4
K. Xiang, et al. Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043

Table 4
Several cases for the applications of the Blaney-Criddle (1950) equation (presented chronologically)
Proposed by Standard Time scale Climate zone Performance

Zhai et al. (2010) Lysimeter Monthly Arid/Semiarid/Humid RMSE = 75 mm•month-1

Tabari et al. (2011) FAO 56 PM Daily Humid RMSE = 0.33 mm•day-1
Niaghi et al. (2013) FAO 56 PM Monthly / RMSE = 36 mm•month-1
Rácz et al. (2013) / Daily/ Monthly Humid Standard deviation = 2.32 mm•day-1
Tabari et al. (2013) FAO 56 PM Daily/ Monthly Arid RMSE = 0.98 mm•day-1
Sheikh and Mohammadi (2013) FAO 56 PM Daily Arid/Semiarid MBE = -0.62mm•day-1
Valipour (2015) FAO 56 PM Daily / R2 = 0.9643
Valipour et al. (2017) FAO 56 P-M Daily Arid/Semiarid/Very humid RMSE = 1.01 mm•day-1
Liu et al. (2017) Lysimeter Daily Semiarid MBE = 1.24 mm•day-1
Antonopoulos and Antonopoulos (2018) FAO 56 PM Daily Mediterranean RMSE = 1.19 mm•day-1

multiplied by the vapor pressure deficit term (which is an important
term of the combination-based equations) was simplified and combined
with the influence of land cover and site condition, which was re-
presented by α0 (Gavin and Agnew, 2004; Pereira, 2004; Arasteh and
Tajrishy, 2008). More information about the modified α0 can be found
in Cristea et al. (2012). The Priestley and Taylor (1972) equation in-
cluded the partial concept of “equilibrium evaporation” developed by
Bouchet (1963). The main idea of “equilibrium evaporation” is that
with the increase of water supply, the actual evaporation increases,
although the potential evaporation decreases, the initial surface has
saturated conditions (where the actual and potential evaporation rates
are equal). This relationship is recognized as the “Complementary Re-
lationship” (Szilagyi et al., 2017; Crago and Qualls, 2018; Han and
Tian, 2018). The Priestley and Taylor (1972) equation is useful for
estimating ETp under available energy limited conditions (Brutsaert and
Stricker, 1979). Still there may be a faulty basic premise in the Priestley
and Taylor (1972) equation, because it is not true that large-scale ad-
vection is independent of the surface energy balance (McNaughton and
Spriggs, 1989). The results are generally good but vary with regions.
For example, Li et al. (2016) report that the Priestley and Taylor (1972)
equation performs better than other equations when compared to eddy
covariance measurements in Wuwei, China under an arid climate.
Yoder et al. (2005) report that it overestimates ETp in Tennessee, USA
when compared with lysimeter data. Berengena and Gavilán (2005)
consider the Priestley and Taylor (1972) equation to be unsuitable for
southern Spain when compared with pan evaporation measurements,
because it is very sensitive to wind speed. Cristea et al. (2012) conclude
that the coefficient may be the main reason for the varied results under
different climates and evaporation surfaces.
The Jensen and Haise (1963) equation has the second largest
number of citations (1039 times) among the radiation-based ETp
equations. However, Tabari et al. (2011) conclude it is the worst among
the radiation-based equations when comparing to the FAO56 PM
equation in Rasht, Iran (humid climate). Muniandy et al. (2016) com-
pare the Jensen and Haise (1963) equation to pan evaporation in Ma-
laysia, and find it to be an inaccurate method. Trajkovic and Kolakovic
(2009) report that the Jensen and Haise (1963) equation performs at a
moderate level in the Balkan Peninsula (humid climate).
The Makkink (1957) equation has also been frequently used (653
citations) because of its low need for climate information. Yoder et al.
(2005) compare the Makkink (1957) equation with lysimeter data in
Tennessee, USA, and find that the estimated ETp values are lower than
the measured values (R2 is 0.9). The result is similar when comparing
the estimated ETp values by the Makkink (1957) equation to pan eva-
poration data at Vaud, Switzerland (Xu and Singh, 2000) (R2 is 0.9). In
south central Nebraska, USA (a sub-humid and semi-arid area), the
Makkink (1957) equation does not perform well when compared with
16 other equations (Irmak and Irmak, 2008).
The Turc (1961) equation (283 citations) performed well in many
studies under different climate conditions. For example, Xu et al. (2013)
compared four equations including the Turc (1961), FAO56 PM,
Priestley and Taylor (1972) and Hargreaves and Samani (1985) with
lysimeter data at the Kunshan irrigation and drainage experiment sta-
tion in the Taihu region of China under a humid subtropical monsoon
climate, and found that the RMSE value of the Turc (1961) equation
was the lowest among the four equations. Liu et al. (2017) compared 16
equations including the Turc (1961) equation and others with lysimeter
data at Xiaotangshan, Beijing in North China Plain (a semiarid zone),
the performance of the Turc (1961) equation was moderate, but it out-
performed other radiation-based equations such as the Priestley and
Taylor (1972), Makkink (1957) and Jensen and Haise (1963) equations.
Irmak and Irmak (2008) compared 17 ETp/ETo equations (including
3 radiation type ETp equations) in a transition zone between sub-humid
and semiarid with strong winds in Nebraska, USA and found that the
Makkink (1957) equation had a larger R2 value than the Turc (1961)
and Priestley and Taylor (1972) equations. Yoder et al. (2005) com-
pared 8 ETp/ETo equations (including 3 radiation type ETp equations) in
a region of the USA (where the weather is influenced by cold dry
continental air and warm moist air) with lysimeter data. They found
that the Makkink (1957) equation had the same R2 value (0.90) as the
Turc (1961) equation, which was larger than that of the Priestley and
Taylor (1972) equation (R2 = 0.86). Djaman et al. (2015) compared 16

Table 5
Some popularly applied radiation-based equations for estimating ETp (presented chronologically)
Proposed by Equation Modified based on Timescale Number of citations

Makkink (1957) ETp = 0.61[Δ/(Δ+γ)]Rs-0.12 Penman (1948) Monthly 653

Turc (1961) ETp = 0.013[Ta/(Ta +15)](Rs+50) / Daily/Monthly 283
Jensen and Haise (1963) ETp=(0.014Ta-0.37)Rs / Daily/Monthly 1022
Stephens and Stewart (1963) ETp=(0.0082Ta-0.19)Rs/1500 / Daily/Monthly 124
Stephens (1965) ETp=(0.0158Ta-0.09)Rs Stephens and Stewart (1963) Daily 16
Christiansen (1968) ETp = 0.385Rs / Daily/Monthly 133
Priestley and Taylor (1972) ETp=α0[Δ/(Δ+γ)](Rn-G) Penman (1948) Daily 5645
Caprio (1974) ETp=(6.1/106)(1.8Ta+1)Rs / Daily/Monthly 92
Oudin et al. (2005) ETp=(RaTa)/(5ρW) / Daily/Monthly 124

Note: Rs is incoming solar radiation, MJ•m-2•day-1; α0 is a coefficient; Rn is net radiation, MJ•m-2•day-1; ρW is density of water, kg•m-3; Δis slope of the saturation vapor
pressure, kPa•℃-1;G is soil heat flux, MJ•m-2•day-1; and γis psychrometric constant, kPa•℃-1

5
K. Xiang, et al. Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043

ETp/ETo equations (including 2 radiation type ETp equations) at ex-
perimental sites with a typical Sahelian climate with a short rainy
season. They found that the performance of the Makkink (1957)
equation was better than the Priestley and Taylor (1972) equation.
In general, underestimation is the main characteristic of radiation-
based equations. Wind effects are not included, which influences the
aerodynamic resistance since increasing wind speed can lower it and
this part of ET is not counted appropriately (Irmak and Irmak, 2008).
Thus, it is only recommended to use this kind of equations in low wind
regions.
3.2.4. Combination type of ETp equations
The combination type of ETp equation includes both energy balance
and aerodynamic aspects, because ET is a process by which liquid water
is converted to vapor phase and then the vapor moves. The aero-
dynamic part is related to Dalton (1802) mass-transfer theory, the ve-
locity term and vapor pressure term are two core terms of it. Penman
(1948) presents a typical combination type of ETp equation which
considers impacts of not only air temperature but also other climatic
factors. It is the first combination type equation for estimating the
amount of water escape from humid surfaces, although it had an initial
aim to calculate E. Some combination type of ETp equations are pre-
sented in Table 6.
The Penman (1948), Penman (1963) and Monteith (1965) equations
have been the most commonly-used combination type ETp equations
(cited 8108, 1075, and 6148 times, respectively). The Penman (1948)
and Penman (1963) equations have not only been studied for different
objectives, but they have also been modified for different conditions by
various researchers such as Wright and Jensen (1972), Thom and Oliver
(1977), Linacre (1977), and Jensen et al. (1970). The Penman (1963)
equation was a modified form of the Penman (1948) equation, which
included wind velocity, and Monteith (1965) added a new coefficient rs
to represent the crop surface roughness. Initially, the Penman (1948)
and Penman (1963) equations were used to estimate ETp, but they were
combined with the Monteith (1965) equation for different crop surface
conditions. The so called “Penman-Monteith” equation was later re-
commended by FAO as a standardized method for estimating ETo (Allen
et al., 1998). During this stage (especially from 1965 to 1998), the
Penman-Monteith equation was used with great ambiguity, because
some scientists used it to estimate ETp and others to estimate ETo. Even
after 1998 this has happened. The combination type of ETo equations
are not discussed in further detail here, because they are presented in
section 4.3.3.
Unsteadiness emerged when comparing the Penman (1948) equa-
tion with other methods. It was the best one among 6 ETp /ETo equa-
tions when all were compared to eddy covariance values in Wuwei,
China (Li et al., 2016), but it did not perform well in Kharagpur, India
from Kashyap and Panda (2001) or in Iran from Valipour et al. (2017).
Irmak and Irmak (2008) conducted a comparison of 11 combination-
based ETp equations among 17 ETp/ETo equations with the criterion of
the ASCE PM equation (Allen et al., 2005), and showed that among the
combination type ETp equations, the Penman (1963) equation had the
best performance with a RMSE of 0.3 mm•day-1, followed by the
Penman (1948), Wright and Jensen (1972) and Van Bavel (1966)
equations with RMSE values of 0.39, 0.48 and 1.04 mm•day-1, respec-
tively. Kashyap and Panda (2001) compared 10 ETp/ETo equations (five
of which were combination type ETp equations) and showed that the
Monteith (1965) equation gave the best performance under a sub-
humid climate condition with a RMSE of 0.08 mm•day-1.
The Thom and Oliver (1977), Van Bavel (1966) and Linacre (1977)
equations were also applied many times (cited 543, 511 and 446 times,
respectively). The Van Bavel (1966) and Rijtema (1966) equations are
essentially based on the original Penman (1948) formula with modified
individual coefficients according to the specific conditions of the study
area.
However, all of the Penman-type equations need several observed
meteorological variables, which can be difficult to attain in some de-
veloping countries lacking widespread meteorological information, so it
is common to use other types of equations as alternative in these re-
gions, and low accuracy of ETp is, reasonably, a predictable con-
sequence.
3.3. Different types of equations for estimating reference crop
evapotranspiration
3.3.1. Temperature-based type of ETo equations
The temperature-based ETo equations are basically similar in
structure to those of ETp, because both represent quantities of atmo-
spheric evaporation demand. Most ETo equations have several different
coefficients, more or less like a modification of ETp. Some popularly
used temperature-based ETo equations are given in Table 7. Actually, it
can be somewhat difficult to distinguish these temperature-based ETo
equations in Table 7 from those for ETp. This is also true for the other
types of ETo equations.
The Hargreaves and Samani (1985) equation (2791 citations) im-
proved upon the Hargreaves (1975) equation (274 citations),

Table 6
The combination-based equations for estimating ETp (presented chronologically)
Proposed by Equation Modified based on Timescale Number of citations

Penman (1948) ΔH + γ (ea′ − ed′ ) f (u) Dalton (1802) Daily 8108

ETp =
Δ+γ
Penman (1963) ETp =
Δ
(R − G) +
6.43γ
(1 + 0.0536uZ )(eZs − eZa) Penman (1948) Daily 1075
Δ+γ n Δ+γ
Monteith (1965) ETp =
Δ (Rn − G ) + [ρcP (es − ea)] / ra Penman (1948) Daily 6148
Δ + γ (1 + rs / ra)
Van Bavel (1966) Δ γ 0.622ρκ 2 uZ (es − ea) Penman (1963) Daily 511
ETp = (R − G) +
Δ+γ n Δ+γ Pre [ln(Z1 − d) / z 0 ]2
Rijtema (1966) ΔRn + γru20.75 (es − ea) Penman (1963) Daily 22
ETp =
Δ+γ
Wright and Jensen (1972) ETp =
Δ
(R − G ) + 15.36
γ
W (eZs − eZa) Penman (1963) Daily 193
Δ+γ n Δ+γ f
Thom and Oliver (1977) ETp =
Δ (Rn − G ) + 1.2γ (1 + 0.54u2)(es − ea) Penman-Monteith (1965) Daily 543
Δ + γ (1 + rs / ra)
Linacre (1977) [700(Ta + 0.006Z ) / (100 − φ)] + 15(Ta − Tdew ) Penman (1948) Daily/Monthly 446
ETp =
80 − Ta

Note: ea’ is the saturation vapor pressure at the mean air temperature, kPa; ed’ is the vapur pressure in the atmosphere, kPa; H is net radiant energy available at
surface, MJ•m-2•day-1; f(u) is a function of the horizontal wind velocity, m•s-1; Wf = 0.75 + 0.0185u2; ρ is density of air, kg•m-3; cP is specific heat of air, MJ•kg-1•℃-1;
rs is roughness coefficient, s•m-1; ra is aerodynamic resistance to water vapor transport, s•m-1; uZ is wind speed at Z meter high, m•s-1; eZs and eZa are saturation and
actual vapor pressure at Z meter high, kPa; k is van Karman constant, 0.41; Pre is atmospheric pressure, kPa; Z1 is anemometer height above soil, m; z0 is wind profile
roughness height, m; d is wind profile displacement height, m; and φ is the latitude, rad.

6
 K. Xiang, et al.

Table 7
The temperature-based equations for estimating ETo (presented according to the modified equation types)
Proposed by Equation Modified based on Time scale Number of citations

1.3
Kharrufa (1985) ETo = 0.34pTa / Daily/Monthly 57
Jones and Ritchie (1990) ETo=α1[0.00387Rs(0.6Tmax+0.4Tmin+29)] / 145
Ahooghalandari et al. (2016) ETo = 0.369Ra+0.139Tmax(1-RH/100)-1.95 / Daily/Monthly 8
Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) ETo= p (0.46Ta+8) Blaney-Criddle (1950) Monthly 1811
Samani and Pessarakli (1986) ETo = 0.013KTRa (1.8Ta+32-TX)Td0.5 Jensen-Haise (1963) Daily/Monthly 66
Valiantzas (2013b) See the notes (long equation) Penman (1963) Daily/Monthly 73
Valiantzas (2018) ETo≈0.0118(1-RH/100)0.2Td0.3[Ra(Ta+10)0.5-40]+0.1(Ta+20)(1-RH/100)(U/2)0.6 1
Hargreaves and Samani (1982) ETo = 0.0145KRSRa(Ta+17.8Td0.5 Hargreaves (1975) Daily/Monthly 1464
Xu and Singh (2000) ETo = 0.0145Rs(Ta+17.8) Monthly 278
Hargreaves et al. (1985) ETo = 0.0022Ra(Ta+17.8)Td0.5 Hargreaves-Samani (1982) Daily/Monthly 435

7
Hargreaves and Samani (1985)
Droogers and Allen (2002)
Trajkovic (2007)
Ravazzani et al. (2011)
Tabari and Talaee (2011)
Berti et al. (2014)
Dorji et al. (2016)
Feng et al. (2017)
Lobit et al. (2017)
Tang et al. (2019)
ETo = 0.0023Ra(Ta+17.8)Td0.5 Hargreaves et al. (1985) Daily/Monthly/Year 2791
ETo = 0.0005304Ra(Ta+17)(Td -0.0123P) 0.76 Hargreaves-Samani (1985) Daily/Monthly/Year 704
ETo = 0.0023Ra(Ta+17.8)Td0.424 181
ETo = 0.0023Ra(Ta+17.8)(0.817 + 0.00022Z)Td0.5 63
ETo = 0.0031Ra(Ta+17.8)Td0.5 (for arid climate) ETo = 0.0028Ra(Ta+17.8)Td0.5 (for cold climate) 82
ETo = 0.00193Ra(Ta+17.8)Td0.517 60
ETo = 0.000817Ra(Ta+33.9)Td0.296 6
ETo = 0.00217Ra(Ta+16.4)Td0.435 34
ETo = 0.1555Ra(0.00428Ta+0.09967)Td0.5 1
ETo = 10-4Ra(Ta+36.6)(7 + 0.002Z)Td0.5 0

Note：p, is the percentage of maximum daily insolation (N) compared to the theoretical insolation time of the year; KT, TX, calibration coefficient; KRS is empirical coefficient fitted to Rs /Ra versus Td data; C is empirical
coefficient; Tdew represents dew point temperature,℃; U is the long-term average annual wind speed, m•s-1. From Valiantzas (2013b), ETo≈0.00668 Ra[(Tmax- Tdew)(Ta+9.5)]0.5-0.0696(Tmax-Tdew)-0.024(Ta+20)(1-RH/
100)-0.00455Ra(Tmax-Tdew)0.5+0.0984(Ta+17)(1.03 + 0.00055Td2-RH/100)
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
K. Xiang, et al. Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043

Note: c0 = 0.1396, c1=-3.019 × 10-3,c2=-1.2109 × 10-3, c3 = 1.626 × 10-5, c4 = 8.224 × 10-5, c5 = 0.1842, c6=-1.095 × 10-3, c7 = 3.655 × 10-3, c8=-4.442 × 10-3; C1 = 0.6416-0.00784RH+0.372Rs-0.00264RsRH,
C2=-0.0033 + 0.00812Ta+0.101Rs+0.00584RsTa; c1 is correction factor which depends on mean humidity and wind conditions; W is weight factor which depend on temperature and altitude; a1 is Abtew coefficient
Hargreaves and Samani (1982) equation (1464 citations) and the

Number of citations
Hargreaves et al. (1985) equation (435 citations). It is the most popu-
larly used temperature-based ETo equation. This equation has been
calibrated with eight years of Alta fescue grass lysimeter data from
Davis, California. Because the accuracy of the Hargreaves equation

2447

1811

214

238

238
214

238
214

106
215
165
36

64

19
31

82

21
83
varies with the climatic conditions of study regions (Moeletsi et al.,
2013; Gafurov et al., 2018), the Hargreaves and Samani (1985) equa-
tion, mainly the three main coefficients in the equations, is modified
several times by using lysimeter data, for example by Droogers and

Daily/Monthly
Daily/Monthly
Daily/Monthly

Daily/Monthly

Daily/Monthly

Daily/Monthly
Daily/Monthly
Daily/Monthly
Hourly/ Daily
Allen (2002), Trajkovic (2007), Ravazzani et al. (2011), Tabari and

Timescale
Talaee (2011), Berti et al. (2014), Dorji et al. (2016), Feng et al. (2017),

Monthly
Monthly

Monthly

Monthly
5-day
5-day
5-day

5-day
Daily

Daily
Lobit et al. (2017) and Tang et al. (2019) (see details in Table 7).
Hargreaves and Allen (2003) provide details on the development his-
tory of the Hargreaves series equations. Allen et al. (1998) recommend
the Hargreaves and Samani (1985) equation as a way to estimate ETo
when solar radiation, wind speed and/or relative humidity data are

Priestley-Taylor (1972)
lacking, because it requires little weather data and has good agreement

Christiansen (1968)
Modified based on

Makkink (1957)
with measured values.

Penman (1948)
Penman (1963)

Copais (1974)

Irmak (2003)
The Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) equation, which is commonly

Turc (1961)
noted as the FAO24 Blaney-Criddle equation, is widely used (1811 ci-
tations), because it has small data requirement. The good performance
may stem from its original development for humid areas where the

/
/

/
advective effect is usually negligible (Irmak et al., 2003a; Ali and Shui,
2009). Hargreaves and Samani (1982) indicate that the FAO24 Blaney-
Criddle equation gives similar ETo estimates as the FAO56 PM method

ETo = 0.015(Rs+50)[Ta/(Ta +15)] (RH≤50)ETo = 0.015(Rs+50)[Ta/(15-Ta)][1+(50- RH)/70] (RH > 50)

at 16 Australian locations under a wide range of climate conditions.
Rizaiza and Al-Osaimy (1996) indicate that irrigation water require-
ments for vegetables and perennial crops are similar to the values es-

ETo = 2.14[Δ/ (Δ+γ)] (Rn -G) (for arid climate) ETo = 1.82[Δ/ (Δ+γ)] (Rn -G) (for cold climate)
timated by the FAO24 Blaney-Criddle equation in the western region of
Saudi Arabia. The results of George et al. (2002) show that the FAO24
Blaney-Criddle equation provides the best results for Davis, California
and Jagdalpur, India with humid climates. However, the unsuitableness

ETo = 0.156Rs+0.0733Tmin -0.0112Tmax -0.478ETo = 0.174Rs+0.0353Ta -0.642

of the equation in arid climates also is indicated. for example, Bakhtiari
ETo≈0.0393(Ta +9.5)0.5Rs-0.19Rs0.6φ0.15+0.0061(Ta +20)(1.12Ta-Tmin-2)0.7

et al. (2011) apply 6 different ETo/ETp equations and compare them

The radiation-based equations for estimating ETo (presented according to the modification equation type)

ETo=c0+c1RH+c2Ta+c3RH2+c4Ta2+c5Rs+(Rs /2)(c6RH+c7Ta)+c8Rs2
with lysimeter measurement data at the Iranian Academic Center, Iran,

ETo = 0.013(0.8383-0.0313u22+0.1706u2)(23.88Rs+50)[Ta/(Ta+15)]
under a semiarid climate and find that the FAO24 Blaney-Criddle

ETo = 0.149Rs+0.079Ta -0.611 ETo = 0.289Rn+0.023Ta+0.489

equation has a moderate ranking among the 6 equations. López-Urrea
et al. (2006) compare 7 different ETo/ ETp equations with lysimeter
data under a semiarid climate in Spain, and the FAO24 Blaney-Criddle
equation has the worst performance.
The other temperature-based equations mentioned in Table 7 do not
have widespread use because of their complexity and low accuracy. For ETo = 0.057 + 0.643C1+0.227C2+0.0124C1C2
ETo = 0.013(23.89Rs+50)[Tmax/(Tmax+15)]

example, the Kharrufa (1985) equation performs poorly, and it either

overestimates or underestimates ETo in several studies under different
climate types (Chen et al., 2005; Rosenberry et al., 2007; Paiva et al.,
ETo = 0.98[Δ/ (Δ+γ)] Rn+0.94

2012; Zhang, 2018; Süheri et al., 2019).

ETo = 0.63[Δ/ (Δ+γ)](Rs -2G)

ETo = 1.18[Δ/ (Δ+γ)] (Rn -G)

ETo = 0.77[Δ/ (Δ+γ)]Rs+0.2
ETo = 0.7[Δ/ (Δ+γ)]Rs -0.12

ETo=KRs (0.52≤K≤0.54)

3.3.2. Radiation-based type of ETo equations

ETo = 0.7[Δ/ (Δ+γ)]Rs

Similar to the temperature-based ETo equations, there are also many

ETo=[Δ/ (Δ+γ)]Rn

radiation-based ETo equations, some of them have been commonly

ETo=c1(WRs)

applied in the world. The frequently used radiation-based ETo equations

ETo=a1Rs

are presented in Table 8.

Equation

The Ritchie (1972) equation was the most cited (2447 citations)
among the radiation-based ETo equations, although it was initially
proposed to estimate ETp. Ritchie (1972) introduced a model to com-
pute daily soil water evaporation and plant transpiration, which was
used in DSSAT v3.5 crop models as part of the soil water balance
Alexandris and Kerkides (2003)

module (Jones et al., 2003), it also has been applied to estimate water
Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977)

Trajković and Stojnić (2007)

Castaneda and Rao (2005)

use by way of water balances in hydrological and agricultural studies

Tabari and Talaee (2011)

Alexandris et al. (2006)

(Aggarwal et al., 2017; Carson et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017; López-
Xu and Singh (2000)

Xu and Singh (2000)

Xu and Singh (2000)

Irmak et al. (2003b)

Tabari et al. (2011)
Valiantzas (2013b)

López et al., 2018) or in other crop models (Keating et al., 2003; Jones
De Bruin (1981)
Hansen (1984)

et al., 2017). However, sometimes it performed poorly, for example,

Ritchie (1972)

Abtew (1996)
Abtew (1996)
Abtew (1996)

Abtew (1996)
Proposed by

Berengena and Gavilán (2005) compared 10 ETo/ETp equations, and the

Ritchie (1972) equation performed worse than the Priestley and Taylor
Table 8

(1972) equation, with R2 values of 0.797 and 0.830, respectively.

Researchers have compared equations under various climate

8
K. Xiang, et al. Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043

conditions, and the results varied greatly. Xystrakis and Matzarakis
(2010) chose 13 ETo/ETp equations and compared their performance at
Crete in southern Greece (a semiarid zone) against the FAO56 PM
equation as the standard method, their results showed that among the
radiation-based equations, the Hansen (1984) equation performed best,
the modified Turc (1961) equation by Xu and Singh (2000) ranked
second best, although it had a more complicated formula for requiring
RH data which rendered the Hansen (1984) equation more favorable,
but modified Makkink (1957) equation by Xu and Singh (2000) had
great bias and was not recommended in the study region. Tomar (2015)
compared 19 ETo/ETp equations (including 5 ETp equations) against the
FAO56 PM equation in Pantanagar, Udham Singh Nagar, and the results
showed that the modified Priestley and Taylor (1972) equation by Xu
and Singh (2000) underestimated ETo values (R2 was 0.87), the two
equations from Irmak et al. (2003b) overestimated values (R2 values
were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively), while the Castaneda and Rao (2005)
modified Makkink (1957) equation gave better estimates of ETo (R2 was
0.93). Gabriela and Irmak (2015) studied the influence of the climate
variables on the estimates of 13 equations (including 7 ETp and 6 ETo
equations) at five different regions under different climate conditions.
They found that the Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) equation (FAO24
radiation equation) ranked first in the three regions where the climate
conditions were Mediterranean-type, subhumid and semiarid, and
semiarid, but performed poorly in a humid/subtropical climate. The
two equations from Irmak et al. (2003b) ranked moderately overall in
all study areas, except that the second equation
(ETo = 0.289Rn+0.023Ta+0.489) performed well in subhumid and
semiarid climates.
The variability and instability are still major characteristics of this
type of equations, but from the research results, the radiation-based
equations have good performance in semiarid or semi-humid climate
regions, where the speed velocity data are lacking, so the term is ig-
nored in this type of equations.
3.3.3. Combination type of ETo equations
Similar to the combination-type ETp equations, the combination-
type of ETo equations have been applied extensively in different parts of
the world, when the required geological and weather data are available.
Of these, the FAO 56 PM equation was found to be the most accurate
method to estimate ETo at daily or monthly timescales and was re-
commended as the standard method by the FAO. Some frequently used
combination-type ETo equations including the FAO 56 PM are given in
Table 9.
The combination-type equations for estimating ETo have been
modified several times based on Penman (1963). Valiantzas (2006,
2012, 2013a) contributed significantly to the modification process,
Valiantzas simplified the Penman (1963) equation by indirectly com-
puting the radiation and aerodynamic terms using the standardized
calculation procedure recommended by Shuttleworth and Maidment
(1993) and Allen et al. (1998) and by using calibrations with meteor-
ological data obtained from the CLIMWAT global database (Smith,
1993). The equations that Valiantzas (2006, 2012, 2013a) proposed
have generally performed well (Ahooghalandari et al., 2017; Djaman
et al., 2017).
The FAO56 PM ETo equation (Allen et al., 1998) is a modified
Monteith (1965) equation. It has been used widely for many purposes
because of a strong theoretical basis (Allen et al., 1994b) and rigorous
model description (Allen et al., 1994a). Mostly, this equation is used as
the standard method against several other ETo equations. For example,
Li et al. (2018a) compared 13 ETo/ETp equations (including 5 ETp
equations) of 4 different types against the FAO56 PM equation, and
found that when the comprehensive climatic datasets were available,
the Valiantzas (2013b) was the best equation, because it had a simple
computation procedure and correlated well linearly to the FAO56 PM
equation. Song et al. (2019) analyzed the performance of 12 ETo/ETp
(including 3 ETp) equations in different sub-regions and different time
periods of northeastern China against the FAO 56 PM equation. They
found that the Valiantzas (2006) equation was the best alternative
method to FAO56 PM equation during the crop-growing period. Ahmad
and Choi (2018), Koudahe et al. (2018), and Mokhtari et al. (2018)
considered that the radiation term was the main factor influencing es-
timation accuracy, followed by temperature and wind speed, therefore,
alternatives to the FAO 56 PM that require little weather data are im-
portant in some regions where the climatic data are insufficient.
The ASCE PM equation (Allen et al., 2005) included alfalfa as an-
other reference crop and proposed two coefficients Cn and Cd (for re-
ference type and calculation time step, respectively) to distinguish al-
falfa and grass. Djaman et al. (2018a) analyzed the ratio of ETo, alfalfa to
ETo, grass and their correlations in New Mexico (USA) calculated with
the ASCE PM equation, showed that there was a strong correlation
between ETo, alfalfa and ETo, grass (0.96 < R2 < 0.98 at 6 sites). Lopez-
Urrea et al. (2006) compared the FAO56 PM and ASCE PM equations

Table 9
The combination-type equations for estimating ETo (presented according to the modified equation type)
Proposed by Equation Modified based Timescale Number of
on citations
s

Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) Δ γ Penman (1963) Daily/ Monthly 1811

ET0 = c2 ⎡0.408 (R − G ) + 2.7 (1 + 0.846u2)⎤
⎣ Δ+γ n Δ+γ ⎦
Wright (1982) ET0 =
Δ
(R − G ) + 6.43
γ
W (e − eZa) 840
Δ+γ n Δ + γ f Zs
George et al. (1985) ET0 =
Δ
(R − G) + 0.268
γ
(a + bW uZ )(es − ea) 18
Δ+γ n Δ+γ W
Shuttleworth and Maidment ET0 =
Δ
R +
γ 6340(1 + 0.536u2)(es − ea) 26
(1993) Δ+γ n Δ+γ

Valiantzas (2006) ETo≈0.051(1-α)(Ta+9.5) Rs-2.4(Rs/Ra) +0.00012Z

0.5 2
190
+0.048(Ta+20)(1-RH/100)(0.5 + 0.536u2)
Valiantzas (2012) ETo≈0.0393Rs(Ta+9.5)0.5-0.024(Ta+20)(1-RH/100) 73
-2.4(Rs/Ra)2+0.066Waero(Ta+20)(1-RH/100)u20.6
Valiantzas (2013a) ETo≈0.0393Rs(Ta+9.5)0.5-0.19 Rs0.6φ0.15+0.048(Ta+20)(1-RH/100)u20.7 36
Allen et al. (1998) ET0 =
0.408Δ (Rn − G ) + γu2 (es − ea)[900 / (T2 + 273)] Monteith Hourly/Daily 17675
(FAO56 PM) Δ + γ (1 + 0.34u2) (1965) /Monthly
Allen et al. (2005) (ASCE ET0 =
0.408Δ (Rn − G ) + γu2 (es − ea)[Cn / (T + 273)] Allen et al. Hourly/Daily 936
PM) Δ + γ (1 + Cd u2) (1998) /Monthly

Note: Wf=aW+bWuZ, aW = 0.4 + 1.4exp{-[(S-173)/52]2}, bW = 0.605 + 0.345exp{-[(S-243)/80]2}; Waero = 0.78 (RH > 65%), Waero = 1.067 (RH≤65%); c2 is a
correction factor to compensate for the effect of day and night weather conditions; S denotes calendar day of year; α is albedo Cn is numerator constant for reference
type and calculation time step; Cd is denominator constant for reference type and calculation time step; T2 is temperature at 2 meter high, ℃; T is mean air
temperature at 2 m height, ℃.

9
K. Xiang, et al.
under semiarid conditions in Spain with lysimeter data, the average
values estimated by the FAO56 PM ETo were equal to the mean mea-
sured values, but the average values estimated by the ASCE PM equa-
tion were 4% higher (0.45 mm/h) than the mean measured lysimeter
values, and simple linear regression and error analysis statistics in-
dicated that agreement between the two estimation methods and lysi-
meter was quite good in the study area. Gavilán et al. (2008) compared
the ASCE and FAO56 PM equations at 31 weather stations for hourly
and daily timescales in Andalusia, Southern Spain. They found that
differences between the two estimates were greater when evaporative
demand increased, and results of the FAO56 PM equation were 6%
smaller than those of the ASCE PM equation for hourly ETo. The suit-
ability of each equation depended on the specific conditions in different
studies, which implied that the same results for equations might not be
obtained in different studies, and different conclusions could be ac-
quired from similar study conditions. Generally, the ASCE PM and
FAO56 PM equations are accepted as standard methods (Djaman et al.,
2018b; Gurski et al., 2018; Quej et al., 2018).
It is necessary to point out that various ETp equations have been
compared with the FAO56 PM equation. Although in this paper we tried
to strictly distinguish between ETo and ETp, this was not important in
the previous studies which mixed up the terms. For example, Trajkovic
and Kolakovic (2009) compared the Hargreaves and Samani (1985),
Thornthwaite (1948), Turc (1961), Priestley and Taylor (1972), and
Jensen and Haise (1963) equations under humid climate conditions.
Zarch et al. (2015) compared Hargreaves and Samani (1985), Priestley
and Taylor (1972), Makkink (1957), Turc (1961), Jensen and Haise
(1963), Blaney and Criddle (1950), Thornthwaite (1948), and Penman
(1948) equations under arid climate conditions. Among various equa-
tions, only the Hargreaves and Samani (1985) equation estimated ETo.
There were more cases that mixed the ETo and ETp equations, and the
two items have been compared frequently (Winter et al., 1995; Xing
et al., 2008; Tabari, 2010; Poyen et al., 2016).
3.3.4. Pan evaporation-based type of ETo equations
Besides the above-mentioned temperature-based, radiation-based
and combination types of equations, ETo can also be estimated by ob-
served pan evaporation data. Measuring evaporation by pans has a long
history, because measuring evaporation with a pan is simple and has
low cost, but there is no unified standard of pan use. It is applicable in
determining ETo (or crop water requirements) for irrigation scheduling.
WMO recommends the adoption of the US Class A evaporation pan
(1.21 m in diameter, 25.5 cm in depth, and mounted on a wooden open
frame platform set on the ground) as the standard instrument after
comparing measurements from three evaporimeters that are widely
used in the two largest national networks (Stanhill, 1976), FAO adopts
it as a method to estimate ETo, called “Pan evaporation method” which
is described as:
ETo = Kpan×Epan (2)
-1
Where Epan is pan evaporation, mm•day ; Kpan is a pan evaporation
coefficient.
The coefficient Kpan can be estimated from some climatic variables,
and some Kpan equations are listed in Table 10.
Heydari et al. (2014) compared all of the Kpan equations given in
Table 10, except for Allen et al. (1998), to estimate ETo with the ob-
served Epan data and the FAO56 PM equation in Qom region, north
central Iran (under arid climate), the results showed that all Kpan
equations overestimated ETo compared to the FAO56 PM (R2 < 0.86),
and the Heydari and Heydari (2014) coefficient method had the best
adaptation (RMSE = 0.49 mm/day). Gundekar et al. (2008) compared
the Kpan equations of Cuenca (1989), Snyder (1992), Pereira et al.
(1995), and Orang (1998) in the semiarid climate region of Iran, and
concluded that the performance ranking of the different approaches
were: Snyder (1992) > Orang (1998) > Cuenca (1989), and the
10
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
percentage errors were 4.9%, 6.2% and 14.4%, respectively. The
Pereira et al. (1995) method had the worst performance and was
eliminated from further analysis. Sentelhas and Folegatti (2003) esti-
mated ETo values from class A Epan data using different Kpan equations
in a semi-arid region in Brazil and compared ETo values with measured
weighing lysimeter values. They found that the best Kpan model was
Cuenca (1989) with an agreement index value of 0.927. Aschonitis
et al. (2012) estimated the ETo values based on Kpan equations of
Cuenca (1989), Snyder (1992), Pereira et al. (1995), Orang (1998) and
Allen et al. (1998) and compared the ETo results with ASCE PM in
Thessalonik, Greece under a semi-arid Mediterranean climate, the re-
sults showed that the Pereira et al. (1995) equation had the best per-
formance (R2 = 0.875), followed by the Allen et al. (1998)
(R2 = 0.870), Cuenca (1989) (R2 = 0.855) and Orang (1998) methods
(R2 = 846), respectively, while the Snyder (1992) equation had the
worst performance (R2 = 0.638). Although there were some differences
between the ETo values predicted by pan evaporation-based methods
and other types of ETo equations (Stanhill, 2002), and pan evaporation
data required cost of the equipment time (Stanhill, 1965), both could be
used to estimate ETo.
Except for the methods that introduced a pan coefficient Kpan, re-
searchers also developed quantitative ETo relationships directly from
Epan data. Snyder et al. (2005) reviewed the equations for estimating
ETo from Epan and provided a simple method to convert Epan to ETo for
arid climatic conditions, written as follows:
ETo = 10sin{0.5π×Epan×[0.79-0.0035(lnF)2+0.0622lnF]/19.2} (3)
Equation (3) accounts for fetch differences by first adjusting the Epan
rates to values expected for 100 m of grass fetch. However, the method
requires calibration in more humid or windier climates in order to
eliminate the need for RH and u data that are often unavailable (Snyder
et al., 2005).
Rotstayn et al. (2006) combined the models of Thom et al. (1981)
and Linacre (1994) and proposed a pan-evaporation model, later called
the PenPan equation, written as follows:
LEpan=[ΔRn+2.4Lγf(u)(es-ea)]/(Δ+2.4γ) (4)
-1
where L is the latent heat of vaporization of water, J•kg .
In recent years, the PenPan model has been widely applied in many
locations around the world, and it has performed satisfactorily
(Padmakumari et al., 2013; Azorin-Molina et al., 2015; Liu and Sun,
2016; Li et al., 2018b).
4. The differences and connections between ETp and ETo
4.1. From the concepts and developments of ETp and ETo
A connection could be found among the concepts of ETp after
Penman (1956) gave a description of “potential transpiration”.
The ETp descriptions (Anon, 1956; Penman, 1956; Penman, 1963;
WMO, 1963; Jensen, 1968; Dingman, 1992) mainly emphasized the
conditions that could influence the ET rates of crops including: 1) ve-
getation characteristics, such as “completely shading the ground”,
“homogeneous height”; 2) the situation of evaporating/transpiration
surface, such as “aerodynamically rough surface”; 3) the growth con-
dition of crops, such as “adequately supplied with water”, “in optimal
water and nutritional status”, so it was more like a description of “crop
potential evapotranspiration”, which was given by Jensen (1963), ra-
ther than “potential evapotranspiration”, which was given by
Thornthwaite (1948). The description of ETp given by Thornthwaite
(1948) attempted to describe the maximum amount of water vapor
occurring in a region, including the ET from crops and the E from water
surfaces, such as rivers, lakes or reservoirs, in order to determine
whether some region was dry or not.
The standard definition and estimation procedures for ETo are given
K. Xiang, et al.
Table 10
Various equations for estimating Kpan (presented chronologically)
Proposed by Equation
Cuenca (1989) Kpan = 0.475-0.245 × 10-3u2+0.516 × 10-2RH+0.118 × 10-2F-0.16 × 10-4RH2
-0.101 × 10-5F2-0.8 × 10-8RH2u2-0.1 × 10-7RH2F
Allen and Pruitt Kpan = 0.108-3.31 × 10-4u2+0.042lnF+0.1434lnRH-6.31 × 10-4lnRH(lnF)2
(1991)
Snyder (1992) Kpan = 0.482 + 0.024 lnF-3.76 × 10-4u2+0.45 × 10-2RH
Pereira et al. (1995) Kpan = 0.85[Δ/ (Δ+γ)]/[Δ+γ(1 + 0.33u2)]
-4
Orang (1998) Kpan = 0.512062-3.21 × 10 u2+0.042lnF+2.889 × 10 RH+0.31886lnF-1.07 × 10 RH×lnF
Allen et al. (1998) Kpan = 0.108-0.0286u2+0.0422lnF+0.1434lnRH-6.34 × 10-4lnRH(lnF)2
Abdel-Wahed and Kpan = 0.62407-0.00028u2+0.0266lnF+0.00226RH
Snyder (2008)
-4 -3 -3
Heydari and Kpan = 0.46 + 8.01 × 10 u2+1.96 × 10 F-3 × 10 RH-4.12 × 10 RH -2.68 × 10 F +5.5 × 10 RH u2+4.12 × 10
Heydari (2014) RH2F
Note: F is the upwind fetch distance of low-growing vegetation, m.
by FAO 56 and ASCE, it should be noticed that this new term is invented
to distinguish the ambiguous meaning from ETp, though the rigorous
definition of this term actually comes from several confusing descrip-
tions of ETp as mentioned above. The term ETo has been widely used in
hydrology (Mojid et al., 2015; Pham et al., 2018), agronomy (Ismail
and El‐Nakhlawy, 2018; Samuel et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019), irrigation
science (Ali et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2019) and
meteorology (Lin et al., 2018; Paredes and Pereira, 2019; Zhang et al.,
2019a, b). ETo is mixed up with ETp to some extent (Helm et al., 2016),
because for a long time the two have shared concepts and equations,
but it is clear that ETp and ETo are different.
A clearer description of ETp was given by Granger (1989), although,
Granger (1989) considered “potential evaporation” to be the same as
“potential evapotranspiration” and did not differentiate them. There
were several definitions of ETp which considered a variety of evapor-
ating surfaces. The variables that could influence the process of ETp
included radiation, temperature, vapor pressure, relative humidity, and
wind. Based on the influential terms, Granger (1989) identified five
definitions of ETp, namely, evaporation rates which could occur if: (i)
the surface was brought to saturation (EP1), the surface was brought to
saturation and the energy supplied to the surface was held constant
(EP2), (iii) the surface was brought to saturation and the atmospheric
parameters and the energy supplied to the surface was held constant
(EP3), (iv) the surface was brought to saturation and the energy sup-
plied and the surface temperature were held constant (EP4), and (v) the
surface was brought to saturation and the atmospheric parameters and
the surface temperature were held constant (EP5). Only EP2, EP3 and
EP5 were useful, of which EP5 was the most proper summary of ETp,
because the conditions were ideal to let the value of ET reach the
maximum or “potential” valueand the numerical relationship among
these three terms is EP5≥EP3≥EP2.
Katerji and Rana (2011) discussed the relationship between ETp, ETc
and ETo by comparing the different kinds of resistances, including the
aerodynamic resistance, the crop structure resistance and the crop
stomatal resistance. They pointed out that ETo and ETp were not
equivalent. ETp aimed at defining the maximum evaporation demand
for a given climate, however, this concept was proven to be in-
appropriate, because the evaporation climatic demand was not only
linked to the climate, but also to the kind of evaporative surface (e.g.,
bare soil, water surface, crop), so, ETo was suggested as an alternative
concept to be used only in the studies of crop water requirements.
Based on the development history of ETp and ETo, shown in Fig. 1, it
is not surprising that the concept of ETp overlaps with ETo. In fact, ETo
can be considered to be a specific form of ETp. McKenney and
Rosenberg (1993) suggest that ETo is similar to ETp, with the exception
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
Timescale Number of
citations
Daily/ 561
Monthly
Daily/ 171
Monthly
Daily/ 210
Monthly
Daily/ 89
Monthly
-3 -4
Daily/ 26
Monthly
Daily/ 17675
Monthly
Daily/ 12
Monthly
-4 2 -5 2 -7 2 -6
Daily/ 21
Monthly
that the leaf surfaces are typically not wet and a reference crop is
specified. The “reference crop” is a kind of ideal, hypothetical and non-
existing crop, so that ETo also is a kind of theoretical result which can
not occur in reality, and that is similar with the basis of ETp.
The subordinate relationships of ETc, ETa, ETp and ETo to ET are
shown in Fig. 2. ET contains several related subconcepts including ETc,
ETa, ETp and ETo. Both ETp and ETo can be connected to ETa, so they
have a certain commonality as well. ETc is a part of ETa, because it
reduces the scope of ETa to crops to distinguish it from, such as, forest
ETa.
4.2. Applications of ETp and ETo
Ambiguity in applications of ETo and ETp equations were common
because the formulas were selected arbitrarily in many cases. Although
ETo and ETp originated from evaporation or evapotranspiration and
were used ambiguously, ETp has been applied more frequently in hy-
drology, environmental science and meteorology, while ETo has been
applied more frequently in agronomy, agriculture and irrigation.
For example, ETp is a very important input variable for estimating
some meteorological drought indices such as the Palmer drought se-
verity index (PDSI), for which the Thornthwaite (1948) equation is used
to calculate ETp. However, after the FAO56 PM equation is selected as
the standard ETo equation (Allen et al., 1998), it is frequently used to
estimate ETp for PDSI (Oudin et al., 2010; Li et al., 2014; Tao and Xu,
2015; Zhang et al., 2016). In another drought index AI (aridity index),
ETp is a useful variable, various equations of AI involve ETp which is
estimated by the Thornthwaite (1948), Barrow (1992), Budyko et al.
(1974) or Holdridge (1947), United Nations Educational (1979). In
some hydrological models such as Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)
(Cao et al., 2018; Chen and Xie, 2018; Mizukami et al., 2018), MIKE
System Hydrological European (MIKE-SHE) (Asyhari et al., 2018;
Torres et al., 2018; Waseem et al., 2018), ETp is also an important
variable for simulating precipitation and runoff.
In agronomy, accurate calculations of ETo are the prerequisite for
obtaining crop water requirements or ETc, and also the fundamental
basis for formulating agricultural irrigation system and other measures
(Tyagi et al., 2000; Lewis and Allen, 2017). The calculations of ETc from
ETo are the common method with a dimensionless reduction coefficient,
namely a crop coefficient (Kc) to represent comprehensive effects of
various kinds of resistance, including surface resistance, stomatal re-
sistance, and diffusion resistance (Ding et al., 2015; Marin et al., 2016;
Wang et al., 2018). The single crop coefficient, the dual crop coefficient
and the Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985) are the three most popular
ETc methods that apply ETo as a key variable.
11
K. Xiang, et al.
Fig. 1. The development of a time line for ETo, ETp and other ET-related concepts.
In the single crop coefficient approach, the coefficient integrates
differences of the soil water evaporation and crop transpiration rates
between the crop and the grass reference surface. The Kc is basically the
ratio of ETc to ETo, it represents an integration of the effects of four
primary characteristics that distinguish a crop from the reference grass.
The relationship of the single-coefficient method is described as:
ETc=Kc×ETo (5)
In the dual crop coefficient approach, two crop coefficients are used.
One is the basal crop coefficient (Kcb) to describe plant transpiration,
and the other is soil water evaporation coefficient (Ke) to describe
evaporation from the soil surface (Allen et al., 1998). The dual-crop
coefficient relationship is described as follows:
ETc=Kc×ETo=(Kcb+Ke)×ETo (6)
Similar to the dual crop coefficient approach, the Shuttleworth-
Wallace model considers plant transpiration and soil water evaporation
separately based on the Penman-Monteith equation (Monteith 1965).
The two components are weighted by a set of coefficients that represent
the combination of soil and canopy resistances (Shuttleworth and
Wallace, 1985).
5. Conclusions
The confusion between ETo and ETp has existed for a long time. To
distinguish their meanings properly and to use them appropriately
provides an opportunity to improve the accuracy of specific ET esti-
mates. ETo and ETp are related to each other, both terms are used to
refer to changes in water and energy, and both are derived from the
concept of E, however, by nature they are different. Choosing appro-
priate terms according to different research content is necessary to
improve the rigor of the research, and understanding these two dif-
ferent concepts separately is also a prerequisite for their correct usage.
Fig. 2. The subordinate relationships of several ET-related concepts.
12
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
ETo and ETp are developed for different timescales and have dif-
ferent meanings and definitions. ETp is more applied to large areas,
such as open water, land, reservoir, and atmosphere, while ETo aims to
obtain the water quantity needs of a specific crop with its standard
equation and Kc. Thus, the definition of ETo is stricter and more specific
than that of ETp.
The ETo and ETp equations were regularly mixed up at early dates,
but they were classified into different types in the 1980s. The ETp
equations included the Dalton, temperature-based, radiation-based and
combination types. The ETo equations included the temperature-based,
radiation-based, combination types and pan-evaporation based types.
Generally, the concept of ETp is broad and covers a wide range,
while the concept of ETo is specific and clear with matching equations
or alternatives. ETp is more suitable than ETo for describing ET in large
areas, while ETo is more suitable for studying water demands of a
particular crop. Although ETo and ETp were not used clearly in the past,
the two terms should be used with more clear distinction in the future.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was jointly supported by the National Key Research
and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFC0403303), the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.
2452019178), the Foreign Experts Introduction Project
(G20190027163) and the China 111 project (No. B12007).
K. Xiang, et al.
References
Abdel-Wahed, M.H., Snyder, R.L., 2008. Simple equation to estimate reference evapo-
transpiration from evaporation pans surrounded by fallow soil. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
134, 425–429.
Abtew, W., 1996. Evapotranspiration measurements and modeling for three wetland
systems in south florid. Jawra J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 32, 465–473.
Aggarwal, P., Bhattacharyya, R., Mishra, A.K., Das, T., Šimůnek, J., Pramanik, P.,
Sudhishri, S., Vashisth, A., Krishnan, P., Chakraborty, D., 2017. Modelling soil water
balance and root water uptake in cotton grown under different soil conservation
practices in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 240, 287–299.
Ahmad, M.J., Choi, K.S., 2018. Influence of climate variables on FAO Penman–Monteith
reference evapotranspiration in the Upper Chenab Canal command area of Pakistan.
Paddy Water Environ. 16, 425–438.
Ahmadi, S.H., Fooladmand, H.R., 2008. Spatially distributed monthly reference evapo-
transpiration derived from the calibration of Thornthwaite equation: a case study,
South of Iran. Irrig. Sci. 26, 303–312.
Ahooghalandari, M., Khiadani, M., Jahromi, M.E., 2016. Developing Equations for
Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration in Australia. Water Resour. Manag. 30,
3815–3828.
Ahooghalandari, M., Khiadani, M., Jahromi, M.E., 2017. Calibration of Valiantzas’ re-
ference evapotranspiration equations for the Pilbara region, Western Australia.
Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128, 845–856.
Albrecht, F., 1950. Die Methoden zur Bestimmung der Verdunstung der natürlichen
Erdoberfläche. Archiv. Für Meteorologie Geophysik Und Bioklimatologie Serie B 2,
1–38.
Alexandris, S., Kerkides, P., 2003. New empirical formula for hourly estimations of re-
ference evapotranspiration. Agr. Water Manage. 60, 157–180.
Alexandris, S., Kerkides, P., Liakatas, A., 2006. Daily reference evapotranspiration esti-
mates by the “Copais” approach. Agr. Water Manage. 82, 371–386.
Ali, M.H., Shui, L.T., 2009. Potential evapotranspiration model for Muda irrigation pro-
ject. Malaysia. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 57–69.
Ali, S., Rewati, N., Marek, G.W., Gowda, P.H., Brauer, D.K., Howell, T.A., 2018.
Lysimetric evaluation of the apex model to simulate daily et for irrigated crops in the
texas high plains. Trans. Asabe 61, 65–74.
Allen, R., Smith, M., Pereira, L., Perrier, A., 1994a. An update for the calculation of re-
ference evapotranspiration. ICID Bull. 43, 35–94.
Allen, R., Smith, M., Perrier, A., Pereira, L.S., 1994b. An update for the definition of
reference evapotranspiration. ICID Bull. 43, 1–34.
Allen, R.G., Jensen, M.E., Wright, J.L., Burman, R.D., 1989. Operational estimates of
reference evapotranspiration. Agron. J. 81, 650–662.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 56. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Allen, R.G., Pruitt, W.O., 1991. FAO-24 reference evapotranspiration factors. J Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 117, 758–773.
Allen, R.G., Walter, I.A., Elliott, R., Howell, T., Itenfisu, D., Jensen, M., 2005. ASCE
standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Anon, J., 1956. Proceeding of the informal meeting on physics in agriculture. Neth. J.
Agric. Sci 4, 162.
Antonopoulos, V., Antonopoulos, A., 2018. Evaluation of different methods to estimate
monthly reference evapotranspiration in a Mediterranean area. Water Uility J. 18,
61–77.
Arasteh, P.D., Tajrishy, M., 2008. Calibrating Priestley–Taylor model to estimate open
water evaporation under regional advection using volume balance method–case
study: Chahnimeh reservoir. Iran. J. Appl. Sci. 8, 4097–4104.
Aschonitis, V.G., Antonopoulos, V.Z., Papamichail, D.M., 2012. Evaluation of pan coef-
ficient equations in a semi-arid Mediterranean environment using the ASCE-stan-
dardized Penman-Monteith method. Agr. Sci. 3, 58–65.
Asyhari, A., Suardiwerianto, Y., Balamurugan, M., Marpaung, S., Tanjungsari, R.,
Hidayat, M., Harahap, M., Ghimire, C., 2018. Assessing the impacts of plantation
forestry on tropical peatland hydrology using the coupled MIKE SHE and MIKE Hydro
River modelling system. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
Azhar, A.H., Perera, B., 2010. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration estimation
methods under Southeast Australian conditions. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 137, 268–279.
Azorin-Molina, C., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Sanchez-Lorenzo, A., McVicar, T.R., Morán-
Tejeda, E., Revuelto, J., El, K.A., Martín-Hernández, N., Tomas-Burguera, M., 2015.
Atmospheric evaporative demand observations, estimates and driving factors in
Spain (1961–2011). J. Hydrol. 523, 262–277.
Baier, W., Robertson, G.W., 1965. Estimation of latent evaporation from simple weather
observations. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 45, 276–284.
Bakhtiari, B., Ghahreman, N., Liaghat, A., Hoogenboom, G., 2011. Evaluation of reference
evapotranspiration models for a semiarid environment using lysimeter measure-
ments. J. Agr. Sci. Tech. 13, 223–237.
Barrow, C., 1992. In: Middleton, N., Thomas, D.S.G. (Eds.), World atlas of desertification
(United nations environment programme), Edward Arnold, London, 1992. isbn 0 340
55512 2,£ 89.50 (hardback), ix+ 69 pp. Land Degrad. Dev. 3, 249.
Bausch, W.C., Neale, C.M., 1987. Crop coefficients derived from reflected canopy radia-
tion: a concept. Trans. Asae 30, 703–709.
Bautista, F., Bautista, D., Delgado-Carranza, C., 2009. Calibration of the equations of
Hargreaves and Thornthwaite to estimate the potential evapotranspiration in semi-
arid and subhumid tropical climates for regional applications. Atmósfera 22,
331–348.
Beard, J., 1985. An assessment of water use by turfgrasses, Turfgrass water conservation,
Univ. of California, Div. of Agr. and Nat. Resour. Publ. 21, 45–60.
Berengena, J., Gavilán, P., 2005. Reference evapotranspiration estimation in a highly
advective semiarid environment. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 131, 147–163.
Berti, A., Tardivo, G., Chiaudani, A., Rech, F., Borin, M., 2014. Assessing reference eva-
potranspiration by the Hargreaves method in north-eastern Italy. Agr. Water Manage.
13
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
140, 20–25.
Biran, I., Bravdo, B., Bushkin-Harav, I., Rawitz, E., 1981. Water Consumption and Growth
Rate of 11 Turfgrasses as Affected by Mowing Height, Irrigation Frequency, and Soil
Moisture 1. Agron. J. 73, 85–90.
Blaney, H.F., Criddle, W.D., 1950. Determining Water Requirements in Irrigated Areas
From Climatological and Irrigation Data. Soil conservation service technical paper
96, Soil conservation service. US Department of Agriculture, Washington.
Bormann, H., 2011. Sensitivity analysis of 18 different potential evapotranspiration
models to observed climatic change at German climate stations. Climatic Change 104,
729–753.
Bouchet, R.J., 1963. Evapotranspiration réelle et potentielle, signification climatique.
International Association of Scientific Hydrology & Earth System Sciences. Berkeley,
Calif: General Assembly of Berkeley, Trans. 62, 134–142.
Brockamp, B., Wenner, H., 1963. Verdunstungsmessungen auf den Steiner See bei
Münster. Dt Gewässerkundl Mitt 7, 149–154.
Brutsaert, W., Stricker, H., 1979. An advection‐aridity approach to estimate actual re-
gional evapotranspiration. Water Resour. Res. 15, 443–450.
Budyko, M.I., Miller, D.H., Miller, D.H., 1974. first ed. Climate and life Vol. 508 Academic
press, New York.
Camargo, A., Marin, F., Sentelhas, P., Picini, A., 1999. Adjust of the Thornthwaite’s
method to estimate the potential evapotranspiration for arid and superhumid cli-
mates, based on daily temperature amplitude. Rev. Bras. Agrometeorol 7, 251–257.
Cao, Q., Gao, M., Xiao, M., Lettenmaier, D.P., Chen, F., 2018. Comparison of Noah-MP
and VIC long-term drought predictions over the Western US. AGU Fall Meeting
Abstracts.
Caprio, J.M., 1974. Phenology and seasonality modeling. In: Springer, V. (Ed.), The solar
thermal unit concept in problems related to plant development and potential eva-
potranspiration, pp. 353–364 New York.
Carson, T., Keeley, M., Marasco, D.E., McGillis, W., Culligan, P., 2017. Assessing methods
for predicting green roof rainfall capture: A comparison between full-scale observa-
tions and four hydrologic models. Uuban Water J. 14, 589–603.
Castaneda, L., Rao, P., 2005. Comparison of methods for estimating reference evapo-
transpiration in Southern California. J. Environ. Hydrol. 13, 1–10.
Chang, X., Wang, S., Gao, Z., Luo, Y., Chen, H., 2018. Forecast of Daily Reference
Evapotranspiration Using a Modified Daily Thornthwaite Equation and Temperature
Forecasts. Irrig. Drain. 68, 297–317.
Chen, J.F., Yeh, H.F., Lee, C.H., Lo, W.C., 2005. Optimal comparison of empirical equa-
tions for estimating potential evapotranspiration in Taiwan. In: Proceedings XXXI
IAHR Congress. Seoul, Korea. pp. 11–16.
Chen, S., Xie, Z., 2018. The Application of Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) Macroscale
Hydrologic Model in Arid and Semi-arid Regions in Northwest China. AGU Fall
Meeting Abstracts.
Choudhury, B.J., 1997. Global pattern of potential evaporation calculated from the
Penman-Monteith equation using satellite and assimilated data. Remote Sens.
Environ. 61, 64–81.
Christiansen, J.E., 1968. Pan evaporation and evapotranspiration from climatic data. J.
Irrig. Drain. Eng. Division. 94, 243–266.
Crago, R.D., Qualls, R.J., 2018. Evaluation of the Generalized and Rescaled
Complementary Evaporation Relationships. Water Resour. Res. 54, 8086–8102.
Cristea, N.C., Kampf, S.K., Burges, S.J., 2012. Revised coefficients for Priestley-Taylor and
Makkink-Hansen equations for estimating daily reference evapotranspiration. J.
Hydrol. Eng. 18, 1289–1300.
Cuenca, R.H., 1989. Irrigation system design. An engineering approach, first ed. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Dalton, J., 1802. On the constitution of mixed gases, on the force of steam of vapour from
water and other liquids in different temperatures, both in a Torricellia vacuum and in
air; on evaporation; and on the expansion of gases by heat. Memoirs, Literary and
Philosophical Society of Manchester. 5, 536–602.
De Bruin, H., 1981. The determination of (reference crop) evapotranspiration from rou-
tine weather data. Evaporation in relation to hydrology. Proceedings of Technical
Meeting 38, Committee for Hydrological Research TNO, Evaporation in relation to
hydrology. Proc. Inform 25, 25–37.
Ding, R., Tong, L., Li, F., Zhang, Y., Hao, X., Kang, S., 2015. Variations of crop coefficient
and its influencing factors in an arid advective cropland of northwest China. Hydrol.
Process 29, 239–249.
Dingman, S.L., 1992. Physical hydrology, first ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Savage, New
Jersey.
Dinpashoh, Y., Jhajharia, D., Fakheri-Fard, A., Singh, V.P., Kahya, E., 2011. Trends in
reference crop evapotranspiration over Iran. J. Hydrol. 399, 422–433.
Djaman, K., Balde, A.B., Sow, A., Muller, B., Irmak, S., N’Diaye, M.K., Manneh, B.,
Moukoumbi, Y.D., Futakuchi, K., Saito, K., 2015. Evaluation of sixteen reference
evapotranspiration methods under sahelian conditions in the Senegal River Valley. J.
Hydrol.: regional studies 3, 139–159.
Djaman, K., Koudahe, K., Allen, S., O’Neill, M., Irmak, S., 2017. Validation o f Valiantzas’
reference evapotranspiration equation under different climatic conditions. Irrig.
Drain. Syst. Eng. 6, 1–7.
Djaman, K., Lombard, K., Koudahe, K., Allen, S., O’Neill, M., 2018a. Variability of the
ratio of alfalfa to grass reference evapotranspiration under semiarid climate. Irrig.
Drain. Syst. Eng. 7, 1–6.
Djaman, K., O’Neill, M., Diop, L., Bodian, A., Allen, S., Koudahe, K., Lombard, K.J.T.,
2018b. Evaluation of the Penman-Monteith and other 34 reference evapotranspira-
tion equations under limited data in a semiarid dry climate. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
137, 1–15.
Djaman, K., Tabari, H., Balde, A.B., Diop, L., Futakuchi, K., Irmak, S., 2016. Analyses,
calibration and validation of evapotranspiration models to predict grass-reference
evapotranspiration in the Senegal river delta. J. Hydrol.: regional studies 8, 82–94.
Donohue, R., Mcvicar, T., Roderick, M., 2010. Assessing the ability of potential eva-
poration formulations to capture the dynamics in evaporative demand within a
changing climate. J. Hydrol. 386, 186–197.
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W., 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements, Irrig.
K. Xiang, et al.
Drain. Paper No. 24. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Dorji, U., Olesen, J.E., Seidenkrantz, M.S., 2016. Water balance in the complex moun-
tainous terrain of Bhutan and linkages to land use. J. Hydrol.: regional studies 7,
55–68.
Droogers, P., Allen, R.G., 2002. Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration Under
Inaccurate Data Conditions. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 16, 33–45.
Feng, P., Liu, D.L., Wang, B., Waters, C., Zhang, M., Yu, Q., 2019. Projected changes in
drought across the wheat belt of southeastern Australia using a downscaled climate
ensemble. Int. J. Climatol. 39, 1041–1053.
Feng, Y., Jia, Y., Cui, N., Zhao, L., Li, C., Gong, D., 2017. Calibration of Hargreaves model
for reference evapotranspiration estimation in Sichuan basin of southwest China. Agr.
Water Manage. 181, 1–9.
Fitzgerald, D., 1886. Evaporation. Van Nostrand’s Engineering Magazine (1879-1886)
35, 41.
Frank, A., 1981. Effect of Leaf Age and Position on Photosynthesis and Stomatal
Conductance of Forage Grasses 1. Agron. J. 73, 70–74.
Gabriela, A.M., Irmak, S., 2015. Reference (potential) evapotranspiration. I: comparison
of temperature, radiation, and combination-based energy balance equations in
humid, subhumid, arid, semiarid, and mediterranean-type climates. J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 142, 1–21.
Gafurov, Z., Eltazarov, S., Akramov, B., Yuldashev, T., Djumaboev, K., Anarbekov, O.,
2018. Modifying Hargreaves-Samani Equation for Estimating Reference
Evapotranspiration in Dryland Regions of Amudarya River Basin. Arg. Sci. 9,
1354–1368.
Gavilán, P., Estévez, J., Berengena, J., 2008. Comparison of standardized reference eva-
potranspiration equations in Southern Spain. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134, 1–12.
Gavin, H., Agnew, C., 2004. Modelling actual, reference and equilibrium evaporation
from a temperate wet grassland. Hydrol. Process 18, 229–246.
George, B.A., Reddy, B., Raghuwanshi, N., Wallender, W.W., 2002. Decision support
system for estimating reference evapotranspiration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 128, 1–10.
George, W., Pruitt, W.O., Dong, A., 1985. Evapotranspiration modeling, in CIMIS Final
Report 10013-A. In: Snyder, R.L., Pruitt, W.O., Henderson, E.W., Dong, A. (Eds.), U.C.
Land, Air, and Water Research Paper Series B53812, pp. 1354–1368.
Gong, X., Liu, H., Sun, J., Gao, Y., Zhang, H., 2019. Comparison of Shuttleworth-Wallace
model and dual crop coefficient method for estimating evapotranspiration of tomato
cultivated in a solar greenhouse. Agr. Water Manag. 217, 141–153.
Granger, R.J., 1989. An examination of the concept of potential evaporation. J, Hydrol.
111, 9–19.
Gundekar, H., Khodke, U., Sarkar, S., Rai, R., 2008. Evaluation of pan coefficient for
reference crop evapotranspiration for semi-arid region. Irrig. Sci. 26, 169–175.
Gurski, B.C., Jerszurki, D., Souza, J.L.M., 2018. Alternative Methods of Reference
Evapotranspiration for Brazilian Climate Types. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia
33, 567–578.
Hamon, W.R., 1960. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Hydraul. Division 87,
107–120.
Han, S., Tian, F., 2018. Derivation of a sigmoid generalized complementary function for
evaporation with physical constraints. Water Resour. Res. 54, 5050–5068.
Hansen, S., 1984. Estimation of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration: Paper presented
at the Nordic Hydrological Conference (Nyborg, Denmark, August-1984). Hydrol. Res
15, 205–212.
Harbeck, G., Kohler, M., Koberg, G., 1954. Water loss investigations: Lake Hefner studies.
Technical Report. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 269. .
Hargreaves, G.H., 1975. Moisture availability and crop production. Trans. Asae 18,
980–984.
Hargreaves, G.H., Allen, R.G., 2003. History and evaluation of Hargreaves evapo-
transpiration equation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129, 53–63.
Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1982. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. Division 108, 225–230.
Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from tem-
perature. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1, 96–99.
Hargreaves, G.L., Hargreaves, G.H., Riley, J.P., 1985. Irrigation Water Requirements for
Senegal River Basin. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 111, 265–275.
Helm, P., Stirling, R., Glendinning, S., 2016. The Implications of Using Estimated Solar
Radiation on the Derivation of Potential Evapotranspiration and Soil Moisture Deficit
within an Embankment. Procedia Eng. 143, 697–707.
Heydari, M.M., Aghamajidi, R., Beygipoor, G., Heydari, M., 2014. Comparison and eva-
luation of 38 equations for estimating reference evapotranspiration in an arid region.
Fresenius Environ. Bull. 23, 1985–1996.
Heydari, M.M., Heydari, M., 2014. Calibration of Hargreaves–Samani equation for esti-
mating reference evapotranspiration in semiarid and arid regions. Arch. Agron. Soil
Sci. 60, 695–713.
Holdridge, L.R., 1947. Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic
data. Science 105, 367–368.
Horton, R.E., 1919. Rainfall interception. Mon. Weather. Rev. 47, 603–623.
Huo, Z., Dai, X., Feng, S., Kang, S., Huang, G., 2013. Effect of climate change on reference
evapotranspiration and aridity index in arid region of China. J. Hydrol. 492, 24–34.
Irmak, A., Irmak, S., 2008. Reference and crop evapotranspiration in South Central
Nebraska. II: Measurement and estimation of actual evapotranspiration for corn. J.
Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134, 700–715.
Irmak, S., Allen, R., Whitty, E., 2003a. Daily grass and alfalfa-reference evapotranspira-
tion estimates and alfalfa-to-grass evapotranspiration ratios in Florida. J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 129, 360–370.
Irmak, S., Haman, D.Z., 2003. Evapotranspiration: potential or reference. Agricultural
Engineering Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences. Univ. Fla. US, ABE 343, 1–3.
Irmak, S., Irmak, A., Allen, R., Jones, J., 2003b. Solar and net radiation-based equations
to estimate reference evapotranspiration in humid climates. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129,
336–347.
Ismail, S.M., El‐Nakhlawy, F.S., 2018. Measuring Crop Water Requirement and Crop
Coefficient for Blue Panic Crop Under Arid Conditions Using Draining Lysimeters.
14
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
Irrig. Drain. 67, 454–460.
Jakimavičius, D., Kriaučiūnienė, J., Gailiušis, B., Šarauskienė, D., 2013. Assessment of
uncertainty in estimating the evaporation from the Curonian Lagoon. Baltica 26,
177–186.
Jensen, M., Wright, J., Pratt, B., 1971. Estimating soil moisture depletion from climate,
crop and soil data. Trans. Asae 14, 954–959.
Jensen, M.E., 1968. Water Consumption By Agricultural Plants. In: KOZLOWSKI, T.T.
(Ed.), Water Deficits and Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York & London, pp.
1–22.
Jensen, M.E., 1974. Consumptive use of water and irrigation water requirements.
American Society of Civil Engineering, New York.
Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D., Allen, R.G., 1990. Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water
Requirements. Agr. Soc. Civil Eng, New York.
Jensen, M.E., Haise, H.R., 1963. Estimating evapotranspiration from solar radiation.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. Division
89, 15–41.
Jensen, M.E., Robb, D.C., Franzoy, C.E., 1970. Scheduling irrigations using climate-crop-
soil data. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
Division 96, 25–38.
Jones, J.W., Antle, J.M., Basso, B., Boote, K.J., Conant, R.T., Foster, I., Godfray, H.C.J.,
Herrero, M., Howitt, R.E., Janssen, S., 2017. Brief history of agricultural systems
modeling. Agr. Syst. 155, 240–254.
Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.,
Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., Ritchie, J.T., 2003. The DSSAT cropping
system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 235–265.
Jones, J.W., Ritchie, J.T., 1990. Crop growth models. Management of farm irrigation
systems. In: Hoffman, G.J., Howel, T.A., Solomon, K.H. (Eds.), ASAE Monograph No.
9 ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich, pp. 63–89.
Kashyap, P., Panda, R., 2001. Evaluation of evapotranspiration estimation methods and
development of crop-coefficients for potato crop in a sub-humid region. Agr. Water
Manage. 50, 9–25.
Katerji, N., Rana, G., 2011. Crop reference evapotranspiration: a discussion of the con-
cept, analysis of the process and validation. Water Resour. Manag. 25 (6),
1581–1600.
Keating, B.A., Carberry, P.S., Hammer, G.L., Probert, M.E., Robertson, M.J., Holzworth,
D., Huth, N.I., Hargreaves, J.N., Meinke, H., Hochman, Z., 2003. An overview of
APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 267–288.
Kharrufa, N., 1985. Simplified equation for evapotranspiration in arid regions. Beiträge
zur Hydrologie 5, 39–47.
Koudahe, K., Djaman, K., Adewumi, J.K., 2018. Evaluation of the Penman–Monteith re-
ference evapotranspiration under limited data and its sensitivity to key climatic
variables under humid and semiarid conditions. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 4,
1239–1257.
Kuzmin, P., 1957. Hydrophysical investigations of land waters. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol.
Publ. 3, 468–478.
Lewis, C.S., Allen, L.N., 2017. Potential crop evapotranspiration and surface evaporation
estimates via a gridded weather forcing dataset. J. Hydrol. 546, 450–463.
Li, M., Chu, R., Islam, A., Shen, S., 2018a. Reference Evapotranspiration Variation
Analysis and Its Approaches Evaluation of 13 Empirical Models in Sub-Humid and
Humid Regions: A Case Study of the Huai River Basin, Eastern China. Water 10, 493.
Li, M., Chu, R., Shen, S., Islam, A.R.M.T., 2018b. Dynamic analysis of pan evaporation
variations in the Huai River Basin, a climate transition zone in eastern China. Sci.
Total Environ. 625, 496–509.
Li, S., Kang, S., Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Du, T., Tong, L., Ding, R., 2016. Evaluation of six
potential evapotranspiration models for estimating crop potential and actual eva-
potranspiration in arid regions. J. Hydrol. 543, 450–461.
Li, Y., Yao, N., Sahin, S., Appels, W.M., 2017. Spatiotemporal variability of four pre-
cipitation-based drought indices in Xinjiang, China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 129,
1017–1034.
Li, Z., Chen, Y., Yang, J., Wang, Y., 2014. Potential evapotranspiration and its attribution
over the past 50 years in the arid region of Northwest China. Hydrol. Process 28,
1025–1031.
Lin, P., He, Z., Du, J., Chen, L., Zhu, X., Li, J., 2018. Impacts of climate change on re-
ference evapotranspiration in the Qilian Mountains of China: Historical trends and
projected changes. Int. J. Climatol. 3, 2980–2993.
Liu, Z., Yao, Z., Wang, R., 2019. Simulation and evaluation of actual evapotranspiration
based on inverse hydrological modeling at a basin scale. Catena 180, 160–168.
Linacre, E.T., 1977. A simple formula for estimating evaporation rates in various climates,
using temperature data alone. Agr. Meteorol. 18, 409–424.
Linacre, E.T., 1994. Estimating US Class A pan evaporation from few climate data. Water
Int. 19, 5–14.
Liu, W., Sun, F., 2016. Assessing estimates of evaporative demand in climate models using
observed pan evaporation over China. J. Geophys. Res. Atoms. 121, 8329–8349.
Liu, X., Xu, C., Zhong, X., Li, Y., Yuan, X., Cao, J., 2017. Comparison of 16 models for
reference crop evapotranspiration against weighing lysimeter measurement. Agr.
Water Manage. 184, 145–155.
Livingston, G.J., 1909. An annotated bibliography of evaporation. Mon. Weather. Rev.
37, 103–109.
Lobit, P., Pérez, L.L., Lhomme, J.P., 2017. Retrieving air humidity, global solar radiation,
and reference evapotranspiration from daily temperatures: development and vali-
dation of new methods for Mexico. Part II: radiation. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 133,
799–810.
López-López, M., Espadafor, M., Testi, L., Lorite, I.J., Orgaz, F., Fereres, E., 2018. Water
use of irrigated almond trees when subjected to water deficits. Agr. Water Manage.
195, 84–93.
Lopez-Urrea, R., de Santa, O.F.M., Fabeiro, C.M.A., 2006. An evaluation of two hourly
reference evapotranspiration equations for semiarid conditions. Agr. Water Manage.
86, 277–282.
López-Urrea, R., de Santa, O.F.M., Fabeiro, C., Moratalla, A., 2006. Testing evapo-
transpiration equations using lysimeter observations in a semiarid climate. Agr.
K. Xiang, et al.
Water Manage. 85, 15–26.
Mahringer, W., 1970. Verdunstungsstudien am neusiedler See. Archiv für Meteorologie,
Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, Serie B 18, 1–20.
Makkink, G., 1957. Testing the Penman formula by means of lysimeters. J. I. Water Eng.
11, 277–288.
Mardikis, M., Kalivas, D., Kollias, V., 2005. Comparison of interpolation methods for the
prediction of reference evapotranspiration—an application in Greece. Water Resour.
Manag. 19, 251–278.
Marin, F.R., Angelocci, L.R., Nassif, D.S., Costa, L.G., Vianna, M.S., Carvalho, K.S., 2016.
Crop coefficient changes with reference evapotranspiration for highly canopy-at-
mosphere coupled crops. Agr. Water Manage. 163, 139–145.
Marsh, A.W., Strohman, R.A., Spaulding, S., Youngner, V., Gibeault, V., 1980. Turfgrass
irrigation research at the University of California: warm & cool season grasses tested
for water needs. Landscape industry.
McCloud, D., 1955. Water requirements of field crops in Florida as influenced by climate.
Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Fla. 15, 165–172.
McKenney, M.S., Rosenberg, N.J., 1993. Sensitivity of some potential evapotranspiration
estimation methods to climate change. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 64, 81–110.
McMahon, T., Finlayson, B., Peel, M., 2016. Historical developments of models for esti-
mating evaporation using standard meteorological data. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev.
Water 3, 788–818.
McMahon, T., Peel, M., Lowe, L., Srikanthan, R., McVicar, T., 2013. Estimating actual,
potential, reference crop and pan evaporation using standard meteorological data: a
pragmatic synthesis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 1331–1363.
McNaughton, K., Spriggs, T., 1989. An evaluation of the Priestley and Taylor equation
and the complementary relationship using results from a mixed-layer model of the
convective boundary layer. Estimation of areal evapotranspiration 177, 89–104.
Meyer, A., 1926. Über einige Zusammenhänge zwischen Klima und Boden in Europa.
Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich. .
Meyer, A.F., 1915. Computing run-off from rainfall and other physical data. Trans. Am.
Soc. Civil Eng. 78, 1056–1155.
Meyer, W., Dugas, W., Barrs, H., Smith, R., Fleetwood, R., 1990. Effects of soil type on
soybean crop water use in weighing lysimeters. Irrig. Sci. 11, 69–75.
Mizukami, N., Newman, A.J., Hamman, J., Wood, A., Gutmann, E.D., Gergel, D.R., Clark,
M.P., Nijssen, B., Arnold, J., 2018. High-resolution statistically downscaled climate
and hydrology projections over Alaska. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
Moeletsi, M.E., Walker, S., Hamandawana, H., 2013. Comparison of the Hargreaves and
Samani equation and the Thornthwaite equation for estimating dekadal evapo-
transpiration in the Free State Province, South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C
66, 4–15.
Mojid, M., Rannu, R., Karim, N., 2015. Climate change impacts on reference crop eva-
potranspiration in North‐West hydrological region of Bangladesh. Int. J. Climatol. 35,
4041–4046.
Mokhtari, A., Noory, H., Vazifedoust, M., 2018. Performance of Different Surface
Incoming Solar Radiation Models and Their Impacts on Reference
Evapotranspiration. Water Resour. Manag. 32, 3053–3070.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 19, 205–234.
Muniandy, J.M., Yusop, Z., Askari, M., 2016. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration
models and determination of crop coefficient for Momordica charantia and Capsicum
annuum. Agr. Water Manage. 169, 77–89.
Niaghi, A.R., Majnooni-Heris, A., Haghi, D.Z., Mahtabi, G., 2013. Evaluate several po-
tential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in Tabriz, Iran. J. Appl. Environ.
Biol. Sci. 3, 31–41.
Orang, M., 1998. Potential accuracy of the popular non-linear regression equations for
estimating pan coefficient values in the original and FAO-24 tables. Unpublished Rep.
Calif. Dept. Water Resour, Sacramento.
Oudin, L., Michel, C., Anctil, F., 2005. Which potential evapotranspiration input for a
lumped rainfall-runoff model? : Part 1&mdash;Can rainfall-runoff models effectively
handle detailed potential evapotranspiration inputs? J. Hydrol. 303, 275–289.
Oudin, L., Moulin, L., Bendjoudi, H., Ribstein, P., 2010. Estimating potential evapo-
transpiration without continuous daily data: possible errors and impact on water
balance simulations. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55, 209–222.
Padmakumari, B., Jaswal, A., Goswami, B., 2013. Decrease in evaporation over the Indian
monsoon region: implication on regional hydrological cycle. Climatic Change 121,
787–799.
Paiva, D.S.C.M., Rotunno, Filho, D.S.O.C., 2012. Evaluation of six empirical reference
crop evapotranspiration equation. Case study: Campos dos Goytacazes. Revista
Brasileira de Meteorologia 27, 34–51.
Parajuli, K., Jones, S.B., Tarboton, D.G., Flerchinger, G.N., Hipps, L.E., Allen, L.N.,
Seyfried, M.S., 2019. Estimating actual evapotranspiration from stony-soils in mon-
tane ecosystems. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 265, 183–194.
Paredes, P., Pereira, L., 2019. Computing FAO56 reference grass evapotranspiration PM-
ETo from temperature with focus on solar radiation. Agr. Water Manage. 215,
86–102.
Peng, L., Li, Y., Feng, H., 2017. The best alternative for estimating reference crop eva-
potranspiration in different sub-regions of mainland China. Sci. Rep. 7, 54–58.
Peng, L., Zeng, Z., Wei, Z., Chen, A., Wood, E.F., Sheffield, J., 2019. Determinants of the
ratio of actual to potential evapotranspiration. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1326–1343.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, hare soil and grass. P. Roy.
Soc. Lond. 193, 120–145.
Penman, H.L., 1956. Evaporation: an introductory survey. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 4, 9–29.
Penman, H.L., 1963. Vegetation and Hydrology, Tech. Commun. 53, Commonwealth
Bureau of Soils. Soil Sci 96, 357.
Pereira, A.R., 2004. The Priestley–Taylor parameter and the decoupling factor for esti-
mating reference evapotranspiration. Agr. Forest Meteotol. 125, 305–313.
Pereira, A.R., Nova, N.A.V., Pereira, A.S., Barbieri, V., 1995. A model for the class A pan
coefficient. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 76, 75–82.
Pereira, A.R., Pruitt, W.O., 2004. Adaptation of the Thornthwaite scheme for estimating
daily reference evapotranspiration. Agr. Water Manage. 66, 251–257.
Perrier, A., Archer, P., de Pablos, B., 1974. Etude de l’évapotranspiration réelle et
15
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
maximele de diverses cultures. I: Dispositif et mesure. Ann. Agron. 25, 229–243.
Pham, M.T., Vernieuwe, H., De Baets, B., Verhoest, N., 2018. A coupled stochastic rain-
fall-evapotranspiration model for hydrological impact analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. 22, 1263–1283.
Poyen, E.F.B., Ghosh, A.K., PalashKundu, P., 2016. Review on Different
Evapotranspiration Empirical Equations. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Manage. Sci. 2, 17–24.
Priestley, C., Taylor, R., 1972. On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation
using large-scale parameters. Mon. Weather Rev. 100, 81–92.
Pruitt, W., 1991. Development of crop coefficients using lysimeters. ASCE 1991, pp.
182–190.
Quej, V.H., Almorox, J., Arnaldo, J.A., Moratiel, R., 2018. Evaluation of Temperature-
Based Methods for the Estimation of Reference Evapotranspiration in the Yucatán
Peninsula. Mexico. J. Hydrol. Eng. 24, 1–10.
Rácz, C., Nagy, J., Dobos, A.C., 2013. Comparison of several methods for calculation of
reference evapotranspiration. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica 9, 9–24.
Ravazzani, G., Corbari, C., Morella, S., Gianoli, P., Mancini, M., 2011. Modified
Hargreaves-Samani equation for the assessment of reference evapotranspiration in
Alpine river basins. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 138, 592–599.
Rijtema, P., 1966. Derived meteorological data: transpiration. Unesco Nat. Res. 7, 55–72.
Rim, C.S., 2000. A comparison of approaches for evapotranspiration estimation. KSCE J.
Civil Eng. 4, 47–52.
Ritchie, J.T., 1972. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete
cover. Water Resour. Res. 8, 1204–1213.
Rizaiza, O.S.A., Al-Osaimy, M.H., 1996. A statistical approach for estimating irrigation
water usage in western Saudi Arabia. Agr. Water Manage. 29, 175–185.
Rohwer, C., 1931. Evaporation from free water surfaces, first ed. US Department of
Agriculture.
Romanenko, V., 1961. Computation of the autumn soil moisture using a universal re-
lationship for a large area. Proc. Ukrainian Hydrometeorol. Res. I. 3, 12–25.
Rosenberry, D.O., Winter, T.C., Buso, D.C., Likens, G.E., 2007. Comparison of 15 eva-
poration methods applied to a small mountain lake in the northeastern USA. J.
Hydrol. 340, 149–166.
Rotstayn, L.D., Roderick, M.L., Farquhar, G.D., 2006. A simple pan-evaporation model for
analysis of climate simulations: Evaluation over Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett.
33, 1–5.
Samani, Z., Pessarakli, M., 1986. Estimating potential crop evapotranspiration with
minimum data in Arizona. Trans. Asae 29, 522–524.
Sammis, T., Mapel, C., Lugg, D., Lansford, R., McGuckin, J., 1985. Evapotranspiration
crop coefficients predicted using growing-degree-days. Trans. Asae 28, 773–780.
Samuel, A., Girma, A., Zenebe, A., Ghebreyohannes, T., 2018. Spatio-temporal variability
of evapotranspiration and crop water requirement from space. J. Hydrol. 567,
732–742.
Schendel, U., 1967. Vegetationswasserverbrauch und-wasserbedarf. Habilitation, Kiel.
137, 1–11.
Sentelhas, P.C., Folegatti, M.V., 2003. Class A pan coefficients (Kp) to estimate daily
reference evapotranspiration (ETo). Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e
Ambiental 7, 111–115.
Sentelhas, P.C., Gillespie, T.J., Santos, E.A., 2010. Evaluation of FAO Penman–Monteith
and alternative methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration with missing
data in Southern Ontario, Canada. Agr. Water Manage. 97, 635–644.
Sheikh, V., Mohammadi, M., 2013. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations
in semi-arid regions of northeast of Iran. Int. J. Agr. Crop Sci. 5, 450.
Shuttleworth, W.J., Maidment, D.R., 1993. Evaporation. Handbook of Hydrology, first ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Shuttleworth, W.J., Wallace, J., 1985. Evaporation from sparse crops‐an energy combi-
nation theory. Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 111, 839–855.
Singh, V.P., Xu, C.Y., 1997. Evaluation and generalization of 13 equations for determining
free water evaporation. Hydrol. Process 11, 311–323.
Smith, M., 1993. CLIMWAT for CROPWAT: A climatic database for irrigation planning
and management. FAO, Roma (Italia) Agrometeorological Group.
Snyder, R.L., 1992. Equation for evaporation pan to evapotranspiration conversions. J.
Irrig. Drain. Eng. 118, 977–980.
Snyder, R.L., Lanini, B.J., Shaw, D.A., Pruitt, W.O., 1987. Using reference evapo-
transpiration (ETo) and crop coefficients to estimate crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for
trees and vines. Leaflet Univ. Calif. Nat. Res. 12–27.
Snyder, R.L., Orang, M., Matyac, S., Grismer, M.E., 2005. Simplified estimation of re-
ference evapotranspiration from pan evaporation data in California. J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 131, 249–253.
Song, X., Lu, F., Xiao, W., Zhu, K., Zhou, Y., Xie, Z., 2019. Performance of 12 reference
evapotranspiration estimation methods compared with the Penman–Monteith
method and the potential influences in northeast China. Meteorol. Appl. 26, 83–96.
Srivastava, R.K., Panda, R.K., Chakraborty, A., Halder, D., 2018. Comparison of actual
evapotranspiration of irrigated maize in a sub-humid region using four different
canopy resistance based approaches. Agr. Water Manage. 202, 156–165.
Stanhill, G., 1965. The concept of potential evapotranspiration in arid zone agriculture.
Unesco Arid Zone Res. 25, 109–117.
Stanhill, G., 1976. The CIMO international evaporimeter comparisons, first ed. Secretariat
of the WMO.
Stanhill, G., 2002. Is the Class A evaporation pan still the most practical and accurate
meteorological method for determining irrigation water requirements? Agr. Forest
Meteorol. 112, 233–236.
Stephens, J.C., 1965. Discussion of “Estimating evaporation from insolation”. J. Hydraul.
504, 171–182.
Stephens, J.C., Stewart, E.H., 1963. A comparison of procedures for computing eva-
poration and evapotranspiration. Publication 62, 123–133.
Süheri, S., Amarkai, P.A., Yavuz, D., 2019. A Comparative Study of Crop
Evapotranspiration Estimation by Three methods with Measured Crop
Evapotranspiration in Konya Plain. Selcuk J. Agr. Food Sci. 33, 1–6.
Szász, G., 1973. A potenciális párolgás meghatározásának új módszere. [New method for
calculating potential evapotranspiration]. Hidrológiai Közlöny. 10, 435–442.
K. Xiang, et al.
Szilagyi, J., Crago, R., Qualls, R., 2017. A calibration‐free formulation of the com-
plementary relationship of evaporation for continental‐scale hydrology. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 122, 264–278.
Tabari, H., 2010. Evaluation of reference crop evapotranspiration equations in various
climates. Water Resour. Manag. 24, 2311–2337.
Tabari, H., Grismer, M.E., Trajkovic, S., 2011. Comparative analysis of 31 reference
evapotranspiration methods under humid conditions. Irrig. Sci. 31, 107–117.
Tabari, H., Hosseinzadeh, T.P., Some’e, B.S., 2013. Spatial modelling of reference eva-
potranspiration using adjusted Blaney-Criddle equation in an arid environment.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 58, 408–420.
Tabari, H., Talaee, P.H., 2011. Local calibration of the Hargreaves and Priestley-Taylor
equations for estimating reference evapotranspiration in arid and cold climates of
Iran based on the Penman-Monteith model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 16, 837–845.
Tang, P., Xu, B., Gao, Z., Li, H., Gao, X., Wang, C., 2019. Estimating reference crop
evapotranspiration with elevation based on an improved HS model. Hydrol. Res. 50,
187–199.
Tanner, C., Pelton, W., 1960. Potential evapotranspiration estimates by the approximate
energy balance method of Penman. J. Geophys. Res. 65, 3391–3413.
Tao, X.H.C., Xu, C., 2015. Characteristics of drought variations in Hanjiang Basin in 1961-
2014 based on SPI/SPEI. J. Water Resour. Res. 4, 404–415.
Tasumi, M., 2019. Estimating evapotranspiration using METRIC model and Landsat data
for better understandings of regional hydrology in the western Urmia Lake Basin.
Agr. Water Manage. 226, 105805.
Thom, A., Oliver, H., 1977. On Penman’s equation for estimating regional evaporation. Q.
J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 103, 345–357.
Thom, A., Thony, J.L., Vauclin, M., 1981. On the proper employment of evaporation pans
and atmometers in estimating potential transpiration. Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 107,
711–736.
Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948. An Approach toward a Rational Classification of Climate.
Geog. Rev. 38, 55–94.
Tomar, A.S., 2015. Comparative performance of reference evapotranspiration equations
at sub-humid Tarai region of Uttarakhand. India. Int. J. Agr. Res. 10, 65–73.
Torres, M.A., Nikolskii, I., Martínez-Miranda, M.E., Martínez, M.R., 2018. Hydrological
assessment of the Teapa River basin, using the MIKE SHE model. Tecnología y
Ciencias del Agua. 9, 130–146.
Trabert, W., 1896. Neue beobachtungen über verdampfungsgeschwindigkeiten. Meteorol.
Z. 13, 261–263.
Trajkovic, S., 2007. Hargreaves versus Penman-Monteith under Humid Conditions. J.
Irrig. Drain. Eng. 133 (1), 38–42.
Trajkovic, S., Kolakovic, S., 2009. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations
under humid conditions. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 3057–3067.
Trajković, S., Stojnić, V., 2007. Effect of wind speed on accuracy of Turc method in a
humid climate. Facta universitatis-series: Architect. Civil Eng. 5, 107–113.
Turc, L., 1961. Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential evapotranspiration:
a simple climatic formula evolved up to date. Ann. Agron. 12, 13–49.
Tyagi, N., Sharma, D., Luthra, S., 2000. Determination of evapotranspiration and crop
coefficients of rice and sunflower with lysimeter. Agr. Water Manage. 45, 41–54.
United Nations Educational S.C.O, 1979. Map of the World Distribution of Arid Regions,
first ed. pp. 7 Map at Scale 1: 25,000,000 with Explanatory Note. MAB Technical
Notes.
Valiantzas, J.D., 2006. Simplified versions for the Penman evaporation equation using
routine weather data. J. Hydrol. 331, 690–702.
Valiantzas, J.D., 2012. Simplified reference evapotranspiration formula using an em-
pirical impact factor for Penman’s aerodynamic term. J. Hydrol. Eng. 18, 108–114.
Valiantzas, J.D., 2013a. Simple ET0 Forms of Penman’s Equation without Wind and_or
Humidity Data.;I_ Theoretical Development. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 139, 1–8.
Valiantzas, J.D., 2013b. Simplified forms for the standardized FAO-56 Penman–Monteith
reference evapotranspiration using limited weather data. J. Hydrol. 505, 13–23.
Valiantzas, J.D., 2018. Temperature-and humidity-based simplified Penman’s ET0 for-
mulae. Comparisons with temperature-based Hargreaves-Samani and other meth-
odologies. . Agr. Water Manage. 208, 326–334.
Valipour, M., 2014. Application of new mass transfer formulae for computation of eva-
potranspiration. J. Appl. Water Eng. Res. 2, 33–46.
Valipour, M., 2015. Temperature analysis of reference evapotranspiration models.
Meteorol. Appl. 22, 385–394.
Valipour, M., Sefidkouhi, M.A.G., Raeini, M., 2017. Selecting the best model to estimate
potential evapotranspiration with respect to climate change and magnitudes of ex-
treme events. Agr. Water Manage. 180, 50–60.
Van Bavel, C., 1966. Potential evaporation: the combination concept and its experimental
verification. Water Resour. Res. 2, 455–467.
Van Bavel, C., Fritschen, L., Reeves, W., 1963. Transpiration by sudangrass as an ex-
ternally controlled process. Science 141, 269–270.
Van Wijk, W.R., De Vries, D.A., 1954. Evapotranspiration. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 2, 105.
Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Beguería, S., Lópezmoreno, J.I., 2010. A multiscalar drought index
sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index.
16
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106043
J. Climate. 23, 1696–1718.
Vörösmarty, C.J., Federer, C.A., Schloss, A.L., 1998. Potential evaporation functions
compared on US watersheds : Possible implications for global-scale water balance
and terrestrial ecosystem modeling. J. Hydrol. 207, 147–169.
Walter, I.A., Allen, R.G., Elliott, R., Jensen, M., Itenfisu, D., Mecham, B., Howell, T.,
Snyder, R., Brown, P., Echings, S., 2000. ASCE’s standardized reference evapo-
transpiration equation. Watershed management and operations management. pp.
1–11.
Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Gong, S., Xu, D., Juan, S., Zhao, Y., 2018. Evapotranspiration, crop
coefficient and yield for drip-irrigated winter wheat with straw mulching in North
China Plain. Field Crops Res. 217, 218–228.
Waseem, M., Kachholz, F., Traenckner, J., 2018. Suitability of common models to esti-
mate hydrology and diffuse water pollution in North-eastern German lowland
catchments with intensive agricultural land use. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 5, 420–431.
Winter, T.C., Rosenberry, D.O., Sturrock, A., 1995. Evaluation of 11 equations for de-
termining evaporation for a small lake in the north central United States. Water
Resour. Res. 31, 983–993.
WMO, 1963. Sites for wind-power installations. Geneva, 1964, 28 illus., 4 tables, Swiss
Fr. 5.00. WMO No. 156,Technical Note No. 63. .
Wright, J.L., 1982. New evapotranspiration crop coefficients. Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. Division 108, 57–74.
Wright, J.L., Jensen, M.E., 1972. Peak water requirements of crops in southern Idaho.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. Division
98, 193–201.
Wu, D., Fang, S., Li, X., He, D., Zhu, Y., Yang, Z., Xu, J., Wu, Y., 2019. Spatial-temporal
variation in irrigation water requirement for the winter wheat-summer maize rota-
tion system since the 1980s on the North China Plain. Agr. Water Manage. 214,
78–86.
Xing, Z., Chow, L., Meng, F., Rees, H.W., Monteith, J., Lionel, S., 2008. Testing reference
evapotranspiration estimation methods using evaporation pan and modeling in
maritime region of Canada. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134, 417–424.
Xu, C.Y., Singh, V., 2000. Evaluation and generalization of radiation‐based methods for
calculating evaporation. Hydrol. Process. 14, 339–349.
Xu, C.Y., Singh, V.P., 2001. Evaluation and generalization of temperature‐based methods
for calculating evaporation. Hydrol. Process. 14, 339–349.
Xu, C.Y., Singh, V.P., 2002. Cross Comparison of Empirical Equations for Calculating
Potential Evapotranspiration with Data from Switzerland. Water Resour. Manag. 16,
197–219.
Xu, J., Peng, S., Ding, J., Wei, Q., Yu, Y., 2013. Evaluation and calibration of simple
methods for daily reference evapotranspiration estimation in humid East China. Arch.
Agron. Soil Sci. 59, 845–858.
Xystrakis, F., Matzarakis, A., 2010. Evaluation of 13 empirical reference potential eva-
potranspiration equations on the island of Crete in southern Greece. J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 137, 211–222.
Yang, C., Fraga, H., Van Ieperen, W., Santos, J.A., 2017. Assessment of irrigated maize
yield response to climate change scenarios in Portugal. Agr. Water Manage. 184,
178–190.
Yao, N., Li, Y., Xu, F., Liu, J., Chen, S., Ma, H., Chau, H.W., Li, L.D., Li, M., Feng, H., 2020.
Permanent wilting point plays an important role in simulating winter wheat growth
under water deficit conditions. Agr. Water Manage. 229, 105954.
Yates, D., Strzepek, K., 1994. Potential evapotranspiration methods and their impact on
the assessment of river basin runoff under climate change, first ed. IIASA, Austria.
Yoder, R., Odhiambo, L.O., Wright, W.C., 2005. Evaluation of methods for estimating
daily reference crop evapotranspiration at a site in the humid southeast United States.
Appl. Eng. Agr. 21, 197–202.
Zarch, M.A.A., Sivakumar, B., Sharma, A., 2015. Assessment of global aridity change. J.
Hydrol. 520, 300–313.
Zhai, L., Feng, Q., Li, Q., Xu, C., 2010. Comparison and modification of equations for
calculating evapotranspiration (ET) with data from Gansu Province, Northwest
China. Irrig. Drain. 59, 477–490.
Zhang, H., Wang, B., Li, L.D., Zhang, M., Feng, P., Cheng, L., Yu, Q., Eamus, D., 2019a.
Impacts of future climate change on water resource availability of eastern Australia:
A case study of the Manning River basin. J. Hydrol. 573, 49–59.
Zhang, J., Sun, F., Xu, J., Chen, Y., Sang, Y.F., Liu, C., 2016. Dependence of trends in and
sensitivity of drought over China (1961–2013) on potential evaporation model.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 206–213.
Zhang, Y., 2018. Estimation of Potential Evapotranspiration by Different Methods in
Handan Eastern Plain, China. Am. J. Water Sci. Eng. 4, 117–123.
Zhang, Y., Li, G., Ge, J., Li, Y., Yu, Z., Niu, H., 2019b. sc_PDSI is more sensitive to pre-
cipitation than to reference evapotranspiration in China during the time period
1951–2015. Ecol. Indicators 96, 448–457.
Zhou, H., Kang, S., Tong, L., Ding, R., Li, S., Du, T., 2019. Improved application of the
penman-monteith model using an enhanced jarvis model that considers the effects of
nitrogen fertilization on canopy resistance. Environ. Exp. Bot. 159, 1–12.