Evapotranspiration is one of the most significant variables used to determine runoff, hydrological balances, and climate change studies. In semi-arid conditions, there is a need to evaluate various alternatives to establish reference evapotranspiration (ETo), given that climate change scenarios sometimes do not provide information on diverse climate variables. Several alternatives for obtaining evapotranspiration are analyzed in this study and compared with the Penman-Monteith method, modified by FAO (PMFAO56). Due to limited daily climate information, it is necessary to consider different options for determining reference evapotranspiration. In the present work, methods based on temperature (Hargreaves, Hargreaves 1, Hargreaves 2, and Baier-Robertson) and radiation (Caprio, Irmark 1, Irmark 2, Irmark 3, Makkink, Priestley-Taylor and Hasen) were investigated. The best performance for the semi-arid Jucar River Basin was determined by Hargreaves methods. Regional calibration of Hargreaves methods, Hargreaves 1 and Hargreaves 2, were performed for each sub-basin.

  • The reference evapotranspiration at a daily scale improves the quality for current and climate modeling.

  • PMFAO56 method is a standardized method for estimating evapotranspiration but alternative evapotranspiration Hargreaves methods provide adequate performance for semi-arid regions.

  • Calibration of the daily evapotranspiration method improves the results.

  • In the absence of climate variables, daily temperature-based models can be used.

Evapotranspiration and precipitation are the most influential variables for runoff determination (Licciardello et al. 2011; Hernández Bedolla et al. 2019), irrigation studies (Srivastava et al. 2018; Rodrigues & Braga 2021), and generation of climate change scenarios (Djaman et al. 2015; Pandey et al. 2016; Flores-Fernández et al. 2022; Hadri et al. 2022; Zhao & Dai 2022). Based on the available information (Vanderlinden et al. 2004), various methods are applied for regional analysis to define the reference evapotranspiration (ETo). The Penman-Monteith method modified by FAO (PMFAO56) (Allen et al. 1998) is widely used to determine evapotranspiration and to compare with other approaches (Valiantzas 2012, 2018; Pandey et al. 2016; Shashidhar & Krishnamurthy 2017; Paredes et al. 2018; Lu et al. 2022; Vishwakarma et al. 2022). Evapotranspiration (PMFAO56) depends on temperature, relative humidity, radiation, and wind speed (Allen et al. 1998). This climate weather information is not always available for all study zones. Therefore, it is necessary to apply methods with fewer climate variables obtainable for these areas.

Alternative approaches can be classified into radiation-based methods, temperature-based methods, combination methods, mass transfer-based methods, genetic algorithms (Valle Júnior et al. 2020), Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) (Güçlü et al. 2017; Roy et al. 2020; Gonzalez del Cerro et al. 2021; Roy et al. 2021), machine learning models (Jing et al. 2019; Kadkhodazadeh et al. 2022; Manikumari et al. 2022; Tejada et al. 2022), and gene-expression models (Traore & Guven 2012, 2013; Mattar & Alazba 2019; Sanikhani et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019).

Alternative methods based on available information were compared to PMFAO56: (a) temperature-based methods and (b) radiation-based methods. Within the temperature-based methods are Hargreaves (Hargreaves & Samani 1985), and Modified Hargreaves (Thornthwaite 1948; Baier & Robertson 1965; Droogers & Allen 2002). Examples of common radiation-based methods are: Caprio (Caprio 1974), Irmark (Tabari et al. 2013), Makkink (Makkink 1957), Priestley-Taylor (Priestley & Taylor 1972), and Hasen (Hansen 1984).

Various alternative methods are applied to different climates. For humid and subtropical conditions, 30 techniques have been tested, in which Turc and Hargreaves have the best performance (Vishwakarma et al. 2022). For humid climates, Huang (Huang et al. 2019) found that categorical boosting is more efficient. The Turc method provides better results among the five approaches for humidity climate conditions (Trajkovic & Kolakovic 2009). For humid to semi-arid climates, Baier and Robertson, Jensen and Haise, and the Penman equation are highly effective (Sharafi & Mohammadi Ghaleni 2021). Penman is more appropriate than the four empirical methods for semi-arid conditions. However, artificial intelligence methods have the best overall performance (Yurtseven & Serengil 2021). Recently, reanalysis products have been used to estimate reference evapotranspiration (Nouri & Homaee 2022), including soil moisture variations (Nouri & Homaee 2021), soil moisture deficits (Herold, et al. 2016), spatially interpolated observations (Pelosi et al. 2020), and satellite-based radiation data (Pelosi & Chirico 2021). The different methods for ETo calculation are subject to the area where they were developed and applied. Additionally, they depend on the information available for different climatic conditions and latitudes. Therefore, a method developed for arid zones presents errors for tropical or humid regions and vice versa.

Evapotranspiration is of significant importance in Spain due to its influence on various aspects of the environment, agriculture, and water resource management. The climate information available for Spain is precipitation and maximum and minimum temperatures from 1950 to date. In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food created the Agroclimatic Information System for Irrigation. The climatic variables available in addition to temperatures and precipitation are: maximum and minimum relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed. With this available data, it is possible to use the PMFAO56 method and analyze alternative methods with limited information. In Spain, different studies have been carried out to analyze reference evapotranspiration. Vanderlinden (Vanderlinden et al. 2004) evaluated the Hargreaves method for southern Spain and found adequate performance. Espadafor (Espadafor et al. 2011) tested eight stations in Andalusia from 1960 to 2005 by the PMFAO56 method and four alternative approaches: Hargreaves, Blaney-Criddle, Radiation, and Priestley-Taylor. For the Duero Basin, seven empirical methods were calibrated with monthly climate variables and found acceptable results (Moratiel et al. 2020). The Hargreaves method has the best performance with calibration for Catalonia and Navarre in northeastern Spain (Senatore et al. 2020).

In the present work, several approaches to determine reference evapotranspiration by the PMFAO56 method were analyzed and compared with 12 others, including temperature-based and radiation-based methods, in order to see which ones can be applied. In the absence of climate variables, daily temperature-based models can be used. Moreover, we use linear regression to calibrate daily equations and improve the models' performance.

PMFAO56 standardized method

Diverse approaches have been proposed to determine evapotranspiration. The first one is the PMFAO56 as a reference method. Comparisons were later made with other techniques that could be validated from the prior. The PMFAO56 method depends on the climate data and a hypothetical grass crop of 12 cm height, 0.23 albedo, and 70 s/m surface resistance (Allen et al. 1998). The climate variables are maximum, mean, and minimum temperatures at 2 m height, wind speed, net radiation, and vapor pressure-deficit. The PMFAO56 method is expressed in Equation (1) and detailed to define each of the variables and constants (Allen et al. 1998). The main limitation of PMFAO56 is that it requires multiple climate variables. This information is needed for regional studies and, in some cases, is unavailable, or attaining it is costly:
formula
(1)
where ETo is reference evapotranspiration (mm/day), Rn is net radiation at the crop surface (MJ/m2day), Tm is the mean air temperature at 2 m altitude (°C), u2 is wind speed at 2 m altitude (m/s), es is saturation vapor pressure (kPa), ea is actual vapor pressure (kPa), es – ea is vapor pressure-deficit (kPa), Δ is the slope of the vapor pressure curve (kPa/°C), γ is the psychrometric constant (kPa/°C), and λ is the latent heat of vaporization, equal to 2.45 (MJ/kg).
Mean temperature (Tm in °C) is the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures (Equation (2)):
formula
(2)
where is the daily maximum temperature (°C) and is the minimum daily temperature (°C).

Alternative evapotranspiration methods

We proposed comparative methods when different climate data is unavailable, for example, wind speed, maximum and minimum relative humidity, and solar radiation. Alternative methods can be used to estimate evapotranspiration for semi-arid regions. Other methods were evaluated on a daily scale and compared with the PMFAO56. We applied two comparative methods: (1) temperature-based and (2) radiation-based.

The temperature-based methods are the following:

Hargreaves method (Hargreaves & Samani 1985) Equation (3):
formula
(3)
Hargreaves method 1 (Droogers & Allen 2002) Equation (4):
formula
(4)
Hargreaves method 2 (Droogers & Allen 2002) Equation (5):
formula
(5)
Baier-Robertson method (Baier & Robertson 1965) Equation (6):
formula
(6)
where is the alternative temperature-based evapotranspiration method (mm/day), is the extraterrestrial radiation (MJ/m2 day), is the daily maximum temperature (°C), is the minimum daily temperature (°C), and Tm is the mean temperature equal to PMFAO56.

The radiation-based methods are the following:

Caprio method (Caprio 1974) Equation (7):
formula
(7)
Irmark method 1 (Irmak et al. 2003) Equation (8):
formula
(8)
Irmark method 2 (Management & 2010) Equation (9):
formula
(9)
Irmark method 3 (Management & 2010) Equation (10):
formula
(10)
Makkink method (Makkink 1957) Equation (11):
formula
(11)
Priestley-Taylor potential evapotranspiration method (Priestley & Taylor 1972; Xiang et al. 2020) Equation (12):
formula
(12)
Hansen method (Hansen 1984) Equation (13):
formula
(13)
where ETo is the alternative radiation-based evapotranspiration method (mm/day), is the solar radiation (mm/day), and Rn, Δ, γ, and λ have the same meaning as PMFAO56. The solar radiation was calculated using Equation (14):
formula
(14)

Performance analysis and regional calibration

Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) is expressed in Equation (15); mean absolute error (MAE; Equation (16)), root mean square error (RMSE; Equation (17)), and percent error estimate (PE, Equation (18)) were defined (Jing et al. 2019):
formula
(15)
MAE, Equation (16):
formula
(16)
RMSE, Equation (17):
formula
(17)
PE, Equation (18):
formula
(18)
where is the predicted evapotranspiration, is the mean of predicted evapotranspiration, is the observed evapotranspiration, is the mean observed evapotranspiration, and n is the number of daily data.

Different regional calibrations have been proposed, including monthly climate predictors (Sharafi & Mohammadi Ghaleni 2021). We use the linear regression calibration at daily data for all the standardized PMFAO56 versus alternative methods. This calibration consists of performing a linear regression and recalculating the evapotranspiration alternative method according to the obtained coefficients.

Case study

The Jucar River Basin is located east of Spain. The basin covers an area of approximately 22,291 km2. Basin and sub-basins information was downloaded from the official site of the Jucar Hydrographic Confederation (www.chj.es). The Jucar River is the most significant in the basin, which captures the surface runoff of all sub-basins (Pedro-Monzonís et al. 2015). The Jucar River Basin is semi-arid based on different standardized indicators (Marcos-Garcia et al. 2017; Ortega-Gómez et al. 2018).

Meteorological data was obtained from the Sistema de Información Agroclimática para el Regadío (SIAR) database at http://eportal.mapama.gob.es/websia. Although this database is of recent creation, records are available for 2000–2022. Information was extracted for climate variables such as maximum, minimum, and average temperatures, maximum and minimum relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed. For the present paper, we applied the available information in the same period for all stations and completed the years 2005–2021.

Five representative stations were selected (Figure 1 and Table 1): header sub-basins Alarcon and Contreras, medium sub-basins Molinar and Tous, and lower sub-basins Huerto Mulet. The mean annual temperature for the header Alarcon sub-basin is 10.8 °C with precipitation of 520.7 mm. In the case of header sub-basin Contreras, the mean annual temperature is 10.87 °C and its annual rainfall is 572.07 mm. The medium sub-basin Molinar has 13.74 °C of mean annual temperature and 347.93 mm of precipitation. The middle sub-basin Tous has reported 14.15 °C mean annual temperature and 381.96 mm precipitation. The lower sub-basin Huerto Mulet presents a 17.23 °C mean annual temperature and 633.14 mm of rainfall.
Table 1

Location of climate stations

StationLongitude (°)Latitude (°C)Z (msnm)Sub-basinStart dateEnd datea
Hondo, Mancorras −1.1075 38.903228 698 Tous 14/01/1999 31/12/2021 
Carrapa Road −1.7697 39.16475 695 Molinar 28/09/2000 31/12/2021 
Fuente Amarga −1.65 40.02847 1,053 Contreras 10/10/2000 31/12/2021 
El Ojillo Malsegar −2.1414 40.15253 940 Alarcon 15/01/2004 31/12/2021 
Barranco de San Antonio −0.4461 39.113604 21 Huerto Mulet 24/02/1999 31/12/2021 
StationLongitude (°)Latitude (°C)Z (msnm)Sub-basinStart dateEnd datea
Hondo, Mancorras −1.1075 38.903228 698 Tous 14/01/1999 31/12/2021 
Carrapa Road −1.7697 39.16475 695 Molinar 28/09/2000 31/12/2021 
Fuente Amarga −1.65 40.02847 1,053 Contreras 10/10/2000 31/12/2021 
El Ojillo Malsegar −2.1414 40.15253 940 Alarcon 15/01/2004 31/12/2021 
Barranco de San Antonio −0.4461 39.113604 21 Huerto Mulet 24/02/1999 31/12/2021 

aConsidering a year complete (accessed 01/05/2022).

Figure 1

Location of the Jucar River Basin.

Figure 1

Location of the Jucar River Basin.

Close modal

Comparative methods

The results were analyzed for different methods and their trends. Results from the 12 methods used are shown in Figures 26 and Table 2. The first 2(1) was also the PMFAO56 method, but solar radiation was estimated for this case. The results indicated greater variability and tend to overestimate the mean and standard deviation of evapotranspiration. Negative values were also found. Priestley-Taylor is the second comparative method 2(2), which overestimated the mean and standard deviation, presents negative values, and overestimated evapotranspiration to more than 5 mm/day. The third 2(3), fourth 2(4), and fifth 2(5) approaches were different modifications of the Hargreaves method. None of these provide negative values. Therefore, the Hargreaves methods have the best statistical performance. Despite this advantage, they tended to overestimate evapotranspiration less than other methods. Baier-Robertson was the sixth comparative method 2(6), which tended to present negative values, underestimated evapotranspiration to less than 2.5 mm/day, and overestimated it to greater than 5 mm/day. The comparative method of Caprio 2(7) had an acceptable performance in average conditions. However, it underestimated evapotranspiration below 2.5 mm/day, presented negative values, and overestimated evapotranspiration above 5 mm/day. The Irmark method, in its different modifications (methods 2(8), 2(9), and 2(10)), and the Makkink method 2(11) tended to underestimate evapotranspiration, with the advantage that they had less variability. The Hasen method 2(12) presented negative values and tended to overestimate and underestimate evapotranspiration. The best methods are Hargreaves, Hargreaves 1 and Hargreaves 2, which did not provide negative values.
Table 2

Performance analysis for alternative approaches

ParameterPMFAO56123456789101112
Alarcon 
 Mean (mm/day) 2.60 4.78 3.52 3.48 3.62 3.02 3.69 2.48 1.86 2.53 1.98 2.35 3.39 
 Deviation (mm/day) 1.72 3.21 2.51 2.17 2.15 1.79 2.78 2.21 1.26 1.62 1.45 1.53 1.93 
R (DN) 1.00 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.97 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 2.82 1.27 1.10 1.21 0.61 1.75 0.73 0.99 0.50 0.76 0.49 0.94 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 2.27 0.98 0.91 1.04 0.50 1.46 0.60 0.79 0.41 0.63 0.39 0.83 
 PE (%) 0.00 45.8 26.3 25.3 28.3 13.9 29.7 4.6 39.2 2.6 31.1 10.6 23.4 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.71 1.44 1.22 1.21 1.01 1.49 1.24 0.69 0.90 0.82 0.87 1.08 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 0.34 −0.21 0.30 0.47 0.40 −0.18 −0.75 0.07 0.18 −0.15 0.10 0.57 
Contreras 
 Mean (mm/day) 2.87 4.21 3.61 3.35 3.51 2.93 3.49 2.56 1.97 2.66 2.12 2.45 3.27 
 Deviation (mm/day) 1.81 3.05 2.61 2.11 2.09 1.74 2.67 2.28 1.29 1.65 1.50 1.57 1.87 
R (DN) 1.00 0.89 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.96 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 2.13 1.19 0.78 0.88 0.49 1.39 0.77 1.15 0.56 0.90 0.61 0.66 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.63 0.92 0.63 0.72 0.38 1.18 0.65 0.93 0.46 0.75 0.50 0.54 
 PE (%) 0.00 31.9 20.6 14.4 18.3 2.0 17.8 12.1 45.2 8.0 35.1 17.0 12.4 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.50 1.41 1.12 1.11 0.93 1.35 1.21 0.67 0.87 0.80 0.84 0.99 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 −0.09 −0.42 0.15 0.33 0.27 −0.38 −0.92 0.05 0.15 −0.18 0.03 0.43 
Molinar 
 Mean (mm/day) 3.61 3.75 4.04 3.50 3.68 3.07 3.40 3.30 2.12 2.91 2.53 2.76 3.29 
 Deviation (mm/day) 2.25 2.88 2.82 2.19 2.19 1.82 2.70 2.69 1.29 1.67 1.55 1.66 1.86 
R (DN) 1.00 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 1.36 1.01 0.61 0.60 0.87 0.94 0.81 1.88 1.11 1.39 1.16 0.77 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.06 0.79 0.47 0.47 0.67 0.77 0.67 1.50 0.82 1.09 0.90 0.57 
 PE 0.00 3.7 10.7 3.3 2.0 17.6 6.2 9.4 70.3 24.2 42.8 31.0 9.7 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.14 1.21 0.94 0.94 0.78 1.14 1.16 0.54 0.71 0.66 0.71 0.79 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 −0.37 −0.31 0.11 0.29 0.24 −0.71 −0.89 0.19 0.36 0.13 0.18 0.42 
Tous 
 Mean (mm/day) 3.56 3.72 4.02 3.44 3.64 3.04 3.38 3.30 2.11 2.91 2.55 2.75 3.24 
 Deviation (mm/day) 2.11 2.89 2.81 2.12 2.12 1.77 2.60 2.58 1.25 1.61 1.50 1.61 1.81 
R (DN) 1.00 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 1.51 1.12 0.68 0.66 0.87 1.07 0.82 1.79 1.02 1.29 1.08 0.78 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.21 0.90 0.49 0.51 0.66 0.86 0.67 1.45 0.77 1.02 0.85 0.58 
 PE (%) 0.00 4.2 11.4 3.3 2.3 17.3 5.4 8.0 68.3 22.3 39.5 29.3 9.7 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.19 1.27 0.95 0.96 0.80 1.14 1.18 0.55 0.72 0.68 0.73 0.81 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 −0.51 −0.49 0.05 0.23 0.19 −0.67 −0.89 0.15 0.33 0.13 0.15 0.36 
Huerto Mulet 
 Mean (mm/day) 3.03 4.67 4.18 3.67 3.88 3.24 3.76 3.60 1.94 2.79 2.56 2.69 3.36 
 Deviation (mm/day) 1.87 3.07 2.89 2.01 2.04 1.70 2.34 2.56 1.18 1.52 1.44 1.54 1.67 
R (DN) 1.00 0.88 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 2.34 1.60 0.84 1.01 0.54 1.14 1.02 1.36 0.62 0.73 0.61 0.63 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.86 1.27 0.70 0.88 0.42 0.94 0.78 1.11 0.51 0.56 0.50 0.52 
 PE (%) 0.00 35.1 27.6 17.5 22.1 6.5 19.5 16.0 55.7 8.3 18.3 12.7 9.8 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.46 1.52 1.04 1.06 0.88 1.18 1.34 0.60 0.79 0.75 0.81 0.86 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 0.26 −0.42 0.53 0.69 0.57 0.19 −0.45 0.12 0.41 0.28 0.25 0.76 
ParameterPMFAO56123456789101112
Alarcon 
 Mean (mm/day) 2.60 4.78 3.52 3.48 3.62 3.02 3.69 2.48 1.86 2.53 1.98 2.35 3.39 
 Deviation (mm/day) 1.72 3.21 2.51 2.17 2.15 1.79 2.78 2.21 1.26 1.62 1.45 1.53 1.93 
R (DN) 1.00 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.97 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 2.82 1.27 1.10 1.21 0.61 1.75 0.73 0.99 0.50 0.76 0.49 0.94 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 2.27 0.98 0.91 1.04 0.50 1.46 0.60 0.79 0.41 0.63 0.39 0.83 
 PE (%) 0.00 45.8 26.3 25.3 28.3 13.9 29.7 4.6 39.2 2.6 31.1 10.6 23.4 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.71 1.44 1.22 1.21 1.01 1.49 1.24 0.69 0.90 0.82 0.87 1.08 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 0.34 −0.21 0.30 0.47 0.40 −0.18 −0.75 0.07 0.18 −0.15 0.10 0.57 
Contreras 
 Mean (mm/day) 2.87 4.21 3.61 3.35 3.51 2.93 3.49 2.56 1.97 2.66 2.12 2.45 3.27 
 Deviation (mm/day) 1.81 3.05 2.61 2.11 2.09 1.74 2.67 2.28 1.29 1.65 1.50 1.57 1.87 
R (DN) 1.00 0.89 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.96 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 2.13 1.19 0.78 0.88 0.49 1.39 0.77 1.15 0.56 0.90 0.61 0.66 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.63 0.92 0.63 0.72 0.38 1.18 0.65 0.93 0.46 0.75 0.50 0.54 
 PE (%) 0.00 31.9 20.6 14.4 18.3 2.0 17.8 12.1 45.2 8.0 35.1 17.0 12.4 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.50 1.41 1.12 1.11 0.93 1.35 1.21 0.67 0.87 0.80 0.84 0.99 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 −0.09 −0.42 0.15 0.33 0.27 −0.38 −0.92 0.05 0.15 −0.18 0.03 0.43 
Molinar 
 Mean (mm/day) 3.61 3.75 4.04 3.50 3.68 3.07 3.40 3.30 2.12 2.91 2.53 2.76 3.29 
 Deviation (mm/day) 2.25 2.88 2.82 2.19 2.19 1.82 2.70 2.69 1.29 1.67 1.55 1.66 1.86 
R (DN) 1.00 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 1.36 1.01 0.61 0.60 0.87 0.94 0.81 1.88 1.11 1.39 1.16 0.77 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.06 0.79 0.47 0.47 0.67 0.77 0.67 1.50 0.82 1.09 0.90 0.57 
 PE 0.00 3.7 10.7 3.3 2.0 17.6 6.2 9.4 70.3 24.2 42.8 31.0 9.7 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.14 1.21 0.94 0.94 0.78 1.14 1.16 0.54 0.71 0.66 0.71 0.79 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 −0.37 −0.31 0.11 0.29 0.24 −0.71 −0.89 0.19 0.36 0.13 0.18 0.42 
Tous 
 Mean (mm/day) 3.56 3.72 4.02 3.44 3.64 3.04 3.38 3.30 2.11 2.91 2.55 2.75 3.24 
 Deviation (mm/day) 2.11 2.89 2.81 2.12 2.12 1.77 2.60 2.58 1.25 1.61 1.50 1.61 1.81 
R (DN) 1.00 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 1.51 1.12 0.68 0.66 0.87 1.07 0.82 1.79 1.02 1.29 1.08 0.78 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.21 0.90 0.49 0.51 0.66 0.86 0.67 1.45 0.77 1.02 0.85 0.58 
 PE (%) 0.00 4.2 11.4 3.3 2.3 17.3 5.4 8.0 68.3 22.3 39.5 29.3 9.7 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.19 1.27 0.95 0.96 0.80 1.14 1.18 0.55 0.72 0.68 0.73 0.81 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 −0.51 −0.49 0.05 0.23 0.19 −0.67 −0.89 0.15 0.33 0.13 0.15 0.36 
Huerto Mulet 
 Mean (mm/day) 3.03 4.67 4.18 3.67 3.88 3.24 3.76 3.60 1.94 2.79 2.56 2.69 3.36 
 Deviation (mm/day) 1.87 3.07 2.89 2.01 2.04 1.70 2.34 2.56 1.18 1.52 1.44 1.54 1.67 
R (DN) 1.00 0.88 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96 
 RMSE (mm/day) 0.00 2.34 1.60 0.84 1.01 0.54 1.14 1.02 1.36 0.62 0.73 0.61 0.63 
 MAE (mm/day) 0.00 1.86 1.27 0.70 0.88 0.42 0.94 0.78 1.11 0.51 0.56 0.50 0.52 
 PE (%) 0.00 35.1 27.6 17.5 22.1 6.5 19.5 16.0 55.7 8.3 18.3 12.7 9.8 
 Equation (C)x 1.00 1.46 1.52 1.04 1.06 0.88 1.18 1.34 0.60 0.79 0.75 0.81 0.86 
 Equation (+− c) 0.00 0.26 −0.42 0.53 0.69 0.57 0.19 −0.45 0.12 0.41 0.28 0.25 0.76 

1 – PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); 2 – Priestley-Taylor; 3 – Hargreaves; 4 – Hargreaves 1; 5 – Hargreaves 2; 6 – Baier-Robertson; 7 – Caprio; 8 – Irmark 1; 9 – Irmark 2; 10 – Irmark 3; 11 – Makkink; 12 – Hansen.

Figure 2

Evapotranspiration of the Alarcon sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Figure 2

Evapotranspiration of the Alarcon sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Close modal
Figure 3

Evapotranspiration of the Contreras sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Figure 3

Evapotranspiration of the Contreras sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Close modal
Figure 4

Evapotranspiration of the Molinar sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Figure 4

Evapotranspiration of the Molinar sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Close modal
Figure 5

Evapotranspiration of the Tous sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Figure 5

Evapotranspiration of the Tous sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Close modal
Figure 6

Evapotranspiration of the Huerto Mulet sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Figure 6

Evapotranspiration of the Huerto Mulet sub-basin PMFAO56 (mm/day) vs. Evapotranspiration: (1) PMFAO56 (estimated Rs); (2) Priestley-Taylor; (3) Hargreaves; (4) Hargreaves 1; (5) Hargreaves 2; (6) Baier-Robertson; (7) Caprio; (8) Irmark 1; (9) Irmark 2; (10) Irmark 3; (11) Makkink; (12) Hansen. Green dot is PMFAO56 method vs. 12 alternative methods. Blue line is linear regression for all alternative methods. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.448.

Close modal

Regional calibration

Subsequently, a regional adjustment was made using the best-performing methods. For the study area, the Hargreaves, Hargreaves 1, and Hargreaves 2 temperature-based will, in case of scarce information, provide adequate results in semi-arid conditions. Figures 711 show the calibrated Hargreaves methods in comparison with the PMFAO56 method, where a good calibration is observed in all scenarios as well as in the statistics described in the next paragraphs.
Figure 7

Daily evapotranspiration of the Alarcon sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Figure 7

Daily evapotranspiration of the Alarcon sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Close modal
Figure 8

Daily evapotranspiration of the Contreras sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Figure 8

Daily evapotranspiration of the Contreras sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Close modal
Figure 9

Daily evapotranspiration of the Molinar sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Figure 9

Daily evapotranspiration of the Molinar sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Close modal
Figure 10

Daily evapotranspiration of the Tous sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Figure 10

Daily evapotranspiration of the Tous sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Close modal
Figure 11

Daily evapotranspiration of the Huerto Mulet sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Figure 11

Daily evapotranspiration of the Huerto Mulet sub-basin PMFAO56 vs. Hargreaves adjustment: (1) Hargreaves; (2) Hargreaves 1; (3) Hargreaves 2.

Close modal

For the header sub-basin Alarcon, the method that provided the best correlation coefficient is Hargreaves 2 (0.97). Moreover, the RMSE, MAE, and PE are 0.432 mm/day, 0.326 mm/day, and 0.14%, respectively. The best performance of mean error was 0.004 mm/day (Hargreaves 1) and the best standard deviation was provided for the Hargreaves 2 method (1.714 mm/day).

In the case of header sub-basin Contreras, the results are similar to Alarcon. The best performance was provided for Hargreaves 2. The mean error is 0.022 mm/day, the standard deviation error was 0.070 mm/day, and the correlation coefficient was 0.963. For the RMSE, the best results were provided for the Hargreaves 1 method (0.388 mm/day). PE is 0.54% for the Hargreaves method.

For the middle sub-basin Molinar, the method that provided the best result was Hargraves 1 for four of the six parameters. The standard deviation error was 0.084 mm/day, the R was 0.963, The RMSE error was 0.62 mm/day, and the MAE error was 0.471 mm/day. The best mean error was 0.007 mm/day and PE is 0.2% for the Hargreaves method.

For the middle sub-basin Tous the Hargreaves and Hargreaves 1 methods had the best performance, both with the three best parameters. The mean error was 0.003 mm/day, R was 0.954, and PE was 0.071% for the Hargreaves method. The standard deviation error was 0.107 mm/day, RMSE was 0.682 mm/day, and MAE was 0.513 mm/day for the Hargreaves 1 method.

Finally, for the lower basin Huerto Mulet, the best performance was for the Hargreaves 1 method with the three best parameters. The standard deviation error was 0.064 mm/day, the R was 0.966, and the RMSE was 0.499 mm/day (Hargreaves 1). The minimum mean error was 0.018 mm/day and PE was 0.6% for the Hargreaves method. The best MAE was 0.347 mm/day for the Hargreaves 2 method.

For the present study, several alternative methods were analyzed. The best performance for the Jucar River Basin was through the Hargreaves methods, similar to other studies realized in Spain (Senatore et al. 2020). Moreover, Hargreaves, Hargreaves 1, and Hargreaves 2 are suitable for semi-arid regions. Regional calibration for the Hargreaves methods is strongly recommended due to the estimation improvement.

For the three Hargreaves approaches, the mean is similar to the PMFAO56 method. Hargreaves 3 method has been demonstrated to be more efficient in header sub-basin, elevation values of stations are near 1,000 msnm. For Molinar and Tous sub-basins, Hargreaves and Hargreaves 1 have similar performance, better than Hargreaves 3. Elevation values for these sub-basins are near 700 msnm. In the case of Huerto Mulet sub-basin, the Hargreaves 1 method provides the best results. The station is located at 22 msnm.

For semi-arid regions, we advise the use of calibration techniques based on Hargreaves methods. These can estimate evapotranspiration by applying only a few climate variables (maximum temperature, minimum temperature).

The motivation for this work is the absence of data from the climate stations on variables such as solar radiation, wind speed, maximum humidity, and minimum humidity. In the absence of this information, it is required to determine the reference evapotranspiration. This module will be incorporated into a stochastic model of temperatures in order to analyze climate change scenarios and evapotranspiration.

In the present work, 12 methods were used to obtain evapotranspiration, the first of which is the most common, the PMFAO56 method. Comparisons were made with ten other approaches based on temperatures and radiation. Of these, it was found that the ones based on Hargreaves temperature and modifications of Hargreaves 2 and Hargreaves 3 show the best results with regard to radiation-based methods. These discrepancies are mainly due to the study areas where the methods based on both temperature and radiation have been proposed.

On the other hand, the Hargreaves method and its respective modifications were calibrated to have a more accurate representation of the study area, which can also be calibrated to different stations in the basin, data commonly available in climate basins or extrapolated from regular grid information.

We thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments on the manuscript. We also value the support provided by the Hydraulics Department of the Michoacana University of San Nicolás de Hidalgo and the Department of Hydraulic Engineering and Environment of the Polytechnic University of Valencia.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Allen
R. G.
,
Pereira
L. S.
,
Raes
D.
&
Smith
M.
1998
Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Requirements
.
Baier
W.
&
Robertson
G. W.
1965
Estimation of latent evaporation from simple weather observations
.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science
45
(
3
),
276
284
.
Caprio
J. M.
1974
The Solar Thermal Unit Concept in Problems Related to Plant Development and Potential Evapotranspiration
.
Springer
,
Berlin, Heidelberg
, pp.
353
364
.
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
.
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies
3
,
139
159
.
Droogers
P.
&
Allen
R. G.
2002
Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions
.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems
16
(
1
),
33
45
.
Flores-Fernández
G. C.
,
García-Romero
L.
&
Tatiana Sánchez-Quispe
S.
2022
Assessing climate change impacts on hydrology: application to Zacapu and Pastor Ortiz aquifers (Mexico)
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
13
,
2129
. .
Gonzalez del Cerro
R. T.
,
Subathra
M. S. P.
,
Manoj Kumar
N.
,
Verrastro
S.
&
Thomas George
S.
2021
Modelling the daily reference evapotranspiration in semi-arid region of South India: a case study comparing ANFIS and empirical models
.
Information Processing in Agriculture
8
(
1
),
173
184
.
Güçlü
Y. S.
,
Subyani
A. M.
&
Şen
Z.
2017
Regional fuzzy chain model for evapotranspiration estimation
.
Journal of Hydrology
544
,
233
241
.
Hadri
A.
,
Saidi
M. E. M.
,
el Khalki
E. M.
,
Aachrine
B.
,
Saouabe
T.
&
Elmaki
A. A.
2022
Integrated water management under climate change through the application of the WEAP model in a Mediterranean arid region
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
13
(
6
),
2414
2442
. .
Hansen
S.
1984
Estimation of potential and actual evapotranspiration
.
Nordic Hydrology
15
(
4–5
),
205
212
.
Hargreaves
G. H.
&
Samani
Z. A.
1985
Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature
.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture
1
(
2
),
96
99
.
Hernández Bedolla
J.
,
Solera
A.
,
Paredes Arquiola
J.
&
Roblero Escobar
C. X.
2019
Análisis del cambio en las aportaciones hidrológicas en la cuenca del río Júcar a partir de 1980 y sus causas
.
Ingeniería del agua
23
(
2
),
141
.
Herold
N.
,
Kala
J.
&
Alexander
L. V.
2016
The influence of soil moisture deficits on Australian heatwaves
.
Environmental Research Letters
11
(
6
),
064003
.
Huang
G.
,
Wu
L.
,
Ma
X.
,
Zhang
W.
,
Fan
J.
,
Yu
X.
,
Zeng
W.
&
Zhou
H.
2019
Evaluation of CatBoost method for prediction of reference evapotranspiration in humid regions
.
Journal of Hydrology
574
,
1029
1041
.
Irmak
S.
,
Irmak
A.
,
Jones
J. W.
,
Howell
T. A.
,
Jacobs
J. M.
,
Allen
R. G.
&
Hoogenboom
G.
2003
Predicting daily net radiation using minimum climatological data
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
129
(
4
),
256
269
.
Jing
W.
,
Yaseen
Z. M.
,
Shahid
S.
,
Saggi
M. K.
,
Tao
H.
,
Kisi
O.
,
Salih
S. Q.
,
Al-Ansari
N.
&
Chau
K. W.
2019
Implementation of evolutionary computing models for reference evapotranspiration modeling: short review, assessment and possible future research directions
.
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics
13
(
1
),
811
823
.
Kadkhodazadeh
M.
,
Anaraki
M. V.
,
Morshed-Bozorgdel
A.
&
Farzin
S.
2022
A New methodology for reference evapotranspiration prediction and uncertainty analysis under climate change conditions based on machine learning, multi criteria decision making and Monte Carlo methods
.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
14
(
5
),
2061
.
Licciardello
F.
,
Rossi
C. G.
,
Srinivasan
R.
,
Zimbone
S. M.
&
Barbagallo
S.
2011
Hydrologic evaluation of a Mediterranean watershed using the swat model with multiple pet estimation methods
.
Transactions of the ASABE
54
(
5
),
1615
1625
.
Lu
X.
,
Zhang
H.
,
Han
Y.
,
Bai
H.
&
Li
E.
2022
Applicability and improvement of different evapotranspiration methods of reference crops in Jiangxi Province
.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
147
(
1–2
),
73
86
.
Makkink
G. F.
1957
Testing the Penman formula by means of lysimeters
.
Journal of the Institution of Water Engineering
11
(
3
),
277
288
.
Available from: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10025640651/ (accessed 10 July 2019)
.
Management, H. T.-W. Resources and 2010, Undefined
2010
Evaluation of reference crop evapotranspiration equations in various climates. Springer, 24 (10), 2311–2337. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11269-009-9553-8 (accessed 15 September 2022)
.
Manikumari
N.
,
Vinodhini
G.
&
Murugappan
A.
2022
Modelling of reference evapotranspiration using climatic parameters for irrigation scheduling using machine learning
.
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
28
(
S1
),
272
281
.
Marcos-Garcia
P.
,
Lopez-Nicolas
A.
&
Pulido-Velazquez
M.
2017
Combined use of relative drought indices to analyze climate change impact on meteorological and hydrological droughts in a Mediterranean basin
.
Journal of Hydrology
554
,
292
305
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.028
.
Mattar
M. A.
&
Alazba
A. A.
2019
GEP and MLR approaches for the prediction of reference evapotranspiration
.
Neural Computing and Applications
31
(
10
),
5843
5855
.
Ortega-Gómez
T.
,
Pérez-Martín
M. A.
&
Estrela
T.
2018
Improvement of the drought indicators system in the Júcar River Basin, Spain
.
Science of the Total Environment
610–611
,
276
290
.
Pandey
P. K.
,
Dabral
P. P.
&
Pandey
V.
2016
Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration methods for the northeastern region of India
.
International Soil and Water Conservation Research
4
(
1
),
56
67
.
Paredes
P.
,
Fontes
J. C.
,
Azevedo
E. B.
&
Pereira
L. S.
2018
Daily reference crop evapotranspiration in the humid environments of Azores islands using reduced data sets: accuracy of FAO-PM temperature and Hargreaves-Samani methods
.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
134
(
1–2
),
595
611
.
Pedro-Monzonís
M.
,
Ferrer
J.
,
Solera
A.
,
Estrela
T.
&
Paredes-Arquiola
J.
2015
Key issues for determining the exploitable water resources in a Mediterranean river basin
.
Science of the Total Environment
503–504
,
319
328
.
Pelosi
A.
,
Terribile
F.
,
D'Urso
G.
&
Chirico
G. B.
2020
Comparison of ERA5-land and UERRA MESCAN-SURFEX reanalysis data with spatially interpolated weather observations for the regional assessment of reference evapotranspiration
.
Water (Switzerland)
12
(
6
),
1669
.
Rodrigues
G. C.
&
Braga
R. P.
2021
Estimation of reference evapotranspiration during the irrigation season using nine temperature-based methods in a hot-summer Mediterranean climate
.
Agriculture (Switzerland)
11
(
2
),
124
.
Sanikhani
H.
,
Kisi
O.
,
Maroufpoor
E.
&
Yaseen
Z. M.
2019
Temperature-based modeling of reference evapotranspiration using several artificial intelligence models: application of different modeling scenarios
.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
135
(
1–2
),
449
462
.
Senatore
A.
,
Parrello
C.
,
Almorox
J.
&
Mendicino
G.
2020
Exploring the potential of temperature-based methods for regionalization of daily reference evapotranspiration in two Spanish regions
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
146
(
3
),
1
13
.
Sharafi
S.
&
Mohammadi Ghaleni
M.
2021
Calibration of empirical equations for estimating reference evapotranspiration in different climates of Iran
.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
145
(
3–4
),
925
939
.
Shashidhar
H. E.
&
Krishnamurthy
K. N.
2017
Comparison of Temperature Based Reference Evapotranspiration Methods with FAO 56 Penman-Monteith Method
.
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
.
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
.
Agricultural Water Management
202
,
156
165
.
Tabari
H.
,
Grismer
M. E.
&
Trajkovic
S.
2013
Comparative analysis of 31 reference evapotranspiration methods under humid conditions
.
Irrigation Science
31
(
2
),
107
117
.
Tejada
A. T.
,
Ella
V. B.
,
Lampayan
R. M.
&
Reaño
C. E.
2022
Modeling reference crop evapotranspiration using support vector machine (SVM) and extreme learning machine (ELM) in region IV-A, Philippines
.
Water (Switzerland)
14
(
5
),
754
.
Trajkovic
S.
&
Kolakovic
S.
2009
Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations under humid conditions
.
Water Resources Management
23
(
14
),
3057
3067
.
Valiantzas
J. D.
2012
Simple ET0 forms of Penman's equation without wind and/or humidity data. I: Theoretical development
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
139
(
1
),
1
8
.
Valle Júnior
L. C. G.
,
Ventura
T. M.
,
Souza
R. S. R.
,
de S. Nogueira
J.
,
de A. Lobo
F.
,
Vourlitis
G. L.
&
Rodrigues
T. R.
2020
Comparative assessment of modelled and empirical reference evapotranspiration methods for a Brazilian savanna
.
Agricultural Water Management
232
,
106040
.
Vanderlinden
K.
,
Giráldez
J. v.
&
van Meirvenne
M.
2004
Assessing reference evapotranspiration by the Hargreaves Method in Southern Spain
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
130
(
3
),
184
191
. .
Vishwakarma
D. K.
,
Pandey
K.
,
Kaur
A.
,
Kushwaha
N. L.
,
Kumar
R.
,
Ali
R.
,
Elbeltagi
A.
&
Kuriqi
A.
2022
Methods to estimate evapotranspiration in humid and subtropical climate conditions
.
Agricultural Water Management
261
,
107378
.
Wang
S.
,
Lian
J.
,
Peng
Y.
,
Hu
B.
&
Chen
H.
2019
Generalized reference evapotranspiration models with limited climatic data based on random forest and gene expression programming in Guangxi, China
.
Agricultural Water Management
221
,
220
230
.
Xiang
K.
,
Li
Y.
,
Horton
R.
&
Feng
H.
2020
Similarity and difference of potential evapotranspiration and reference crop evapotranspiration – a review
.
Agricultural Water Management
232
,
106043
.
Zhao
T.
&
Dai
A.
2022
CMIP6 model-projected hydroclimatic and drought changes and their causes in the twenty-first century
.
Journal of Climate
35
(
3
),
897
921
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data