The Jensen-Haise (1963) formula, with adjusted units, reads

R
ET, = (0.025Ta + 0 . 0 8 ) l (5.7)
28.6
where
ET,, = potential evapotranspiration rate (mm/d)
R, = incoming short-wave radiation (W/m2)
Ta = average air temperature at 2 m ("C)

Equations 5.5 and 5.7 generally underestimate ET, during spring, and overestimate
it during summer, because T, is given too much weight and R, too little.

5.4.2 Air-Temperature and Day-Length Method

The formula of Blaney-Criddle (1950) was developed for the western part of the U.S.A.
(i.e. for a climate of the Mediterranean type). It reads
ET, = +
k p (0.457Tam 8.13) (0.031Ta, + 0.24) (5.8)
where
ET, = monthly potential evapotranspiration (mm)
k = crop coefficient (-)
p = monthly percentage of annual daylight hours (-)
Tam = monthly average air temperature ("C)
Ta, = annual average air temperature ("C)

The last term, with Ta,, was added to adapt the equation to climates other than the
Mediterranean type. The method yields good results for Mediterranean-type climates,
but in tropical areas with high cloudiness the outcome is too high. The reason for
this is that, besides air temperature, solar radiation plays an important role in
evaporation. For more details, see Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977).
More commonly used nowadays are the more physically-oriented approaches (i.e.
the Penman and Penman-Monteith equations), which give a much better explanation
of the evaporation process.

5.5 Evaporation from Open Water: the Penman Method

The Penman method (1948), applied to open water, can be briefly described by the
energy balance at the earth's surface, which equates all incoming and outgoing energy
fluxes (Figure 5.4). It reads
R, = H + LE + G (5.9)
where
R, = energy flux density of net incoming radiation (W/m2)
H = flux density of sensible heat into the air (W/m2)
LE = flux density of latent heat into the air (W/m*)
G = heat flux density into the water body (W/m')

152
 net radiation R n

latent heat I E

b
. .. . .. . ... .. . . .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ..
. .
...
. .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .
. . . . -.- _ -
-. . . .- _ . . . . . .
. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. ...- -
- . .. .. .. . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..
. . - . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . . .
=.- -
.
. . . . . .. . .. ... ... ... .-
-~
-
- . .--
. . .=._. - . . - - . . . . . .
_ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . __ ~

. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 5.4 Illustration of the variables involved in the energy balance at the soil surface

The coefficient h in hE is the latent heat of vaporization of water, and E is the vapour
flux density in kg/m2s. Note that the evapo(transpi)ration in Equation 5.1 is expressed
in mm water depth (e.g. over a period of one day). To convert the above XE in W/m2
into an equivalent evapo(transpi)ration in units of mm/d, hE should be multiplied
by a factor 0.0353. This factor equals the number of seconds in a day (86 400), divided
by the value of h (2.45 x lo6J/kg at 20°C), whereby a density of water of 1000 kg/m3
is assumed.
Supposing that R, and G can be measured, one can calculate E if the ratio H/hE
(which is called the Bowen ratio) is known. This ratio can be derived from the transport
equations of heat and water vapour in air.
The situation depicted in Figure 5.4 and described by Equation 5.9 shows that
radiation energy, R, - G, is transformed into sensible heat, H, and water vapour,
LE, which are transported to the air in accordance with

(5.10)

(5.11)

153
where
cI,c2 = constants
T, = temperature at the evaporating surface ("C)
Ta = air temperature at a certain height above the surface ("C)
e, = saturated vapour pressure at the evaporating surface (kPa)
ed = prevailing vapour pressure at the same height as Ta (kPa)
ra = aerodynamic diffusion resistance, assumed to be the same for heat and
water vapour (s/m)

When the concept of the similarity of transport of heat and water vapour is applied,
the Bowen ratio yields

(5.12)

where
c,/c2 = y = psychrometric constant (kPa/"C)

The problem is that generally the surface temperature, T,, is unknown. Penman
therefore introduced the additional equation
e, - e, = A (T, - Ta) (5.13)
where the proportionally constant A (kPa/"C) is the first derivative of the function
e,(T), known as the saturated vapour pressure curve (Figure 5.5). Note that e, in
Equation 5.13 is the saturated vapour pressure at temperature Ta.Re-arranging gives
A = - - e- - e de,
T, - Ta - dTa (5.14)

The slope A in Figure 5.5 can be determined at temperature Ta, provided that (T,-
Ta) is small.

ea in kPa

Ta in OC

Figure 5.5 Saturated water vapour pressure e, as a function of air temperature Ta

154
From Equation 5.13, it follows that T,-Ta = (e,-e,)/A. Substitution into Equation
5.12 yields

- - -~
es - ed Y (5.15)
hE - Ae, - e,
If (e, - e,) is replaced by (e, - ed-e, + ed),Equation 5.15 can be written as
(5.16)

Under isothermal conditions (i.e. if no heat is added to or removed from the system),
we can assume that T, z Ta. This implies that e, z e,. If we then introduce this
assumption into Equation 5.1 I , the isothermal evaporation, LE,, reads as

(5.17)

Dividing Equation 5.17 by Equation 5.1 1 yields

E, - e, - ed (5.18)
E e, - ed
The ratio on the right also appeared in Equation 5.16, which can now be written as

(5.19)

From Equation 5.9, it follows that H = R, - LE - G. After some rearrangement, and

writing E, (subscript o denoting open water) for E, substitution into Equation 5.19
yields the formula of Penman (1948)

E, =
A(Rn - G)/L + YE, (5.20)
A+Y
where
E, = open water evaporation rate (kg/m2s)
A = proportionality constant de,/dT, (kPa/"C)
R, = net radiation (W/m2)
h = latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)
y = psychrometric constant (kPa/"C)
E, = isothermal evaporation rate (kg/m2s )

A
The term ~ (R, - G)/his the evaporation equivalent of the net flux density of
A+Y
radiant energy to the surface, also called the radiation term. The term - A E, is
A + Y
the corresponding aerodynamic term. Equation 5.20 clearly shows the combination
of the two processes in one formula.
For open water, the heat flux density into the water, G, is often ignored, especially
for longer periods. Also note that the resulting E, in kg/m2 s should be multiplied
by 86 400 to give the equivalent evaporation rate E, in mm/d.
As was mentioned in Section 5.2, E, has been used as a kind of reference evaporation
for some time, but the practical value of estimating E, with the original Penman
formula (Equation 5.20) is generally limited to large water bodies such as lakes, and,
possibly, flooded rice fields in the very early stages of cultivation.

The modification to the Penman method introduced by Doorenbos and Pruitt in

FAO’s Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24 (1977) started from the assumption that
evapotranspiration from grass also largely occurs in response to climatic conditions.
And short grass being the common surroundings for agrometeorological observations,
they suggested that the evapotranspiration from 8 - 15 cm tall grass, not short of
water, be used as a reference, instead of open water. The main changes in Penman’s
formula to compute this reference evapotranspiration, ET, (g for grass), concerned
the short-wave reflection coefficient (approximately 0.05 for water and 0.25 for grass),
a more sensitive wind function in the aerodynamic term, and an adjustment factor
to take into account local climatic conditions deviating from an assumed standard.
The adjustment was mainly necessary for deviating combinations of radiation, relative
humidity, and day/night wind ratios; relevant values can be obtained from a table
in Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977).
If the heat flux, G, is set equal to zero for daily periods, the FAO Modified Penman
equation can be written as

ET, =C [ & - R ; +-A + Y 2.7 f(u) (e, - ed) 1 (5.21)

where
ET, reference evapotranspiration rate (mm/d)
=
C adjustment factor (-)
=
R,’ equivalent
= net radiation (mm/d)
f(u) wind
= function; f(u) = 1 + 0.864 u2
u2 wind speed (m/s)
=
e, - ed vapour pressure deficit (kPa)
=
A, y = as defined earlier

Potential evapotranspiration from cropped surfaces was subsequently found from

appropriate crop coefficients, for the determination of which Doorenbos and Pruitt
(1977) also provided a procedure.

5.6 Evapotranspiration from Cropped Surfaces

5.6.1 Wet Crops with Full Soil Cover

In analogy with Section 5.5, which described evaporation from open water,
evapotranspiration from a wet crop, ET,,,, can be described by an equation very
similar to Equation 5.20. However, one has to take into account the differences
between a crop surface and a water surface:
- The albedo (or reflection coefficient for solar radiation) is different for a crop surface
(say, 0.23) and a water surface (0.05 - 0.07);

156
- A crop surface has a roughness (dependent on crop height and wind speed), and
hence an aerodynamic resistance, ra, that can differ considerably from that of a
water surface.

Following the same reasoning as led to Equation 5.17, and replacing the coefficient
c2by its proper expression, we can write E, for a crop as

(5.22)

where
E = ratio of molecular masses of water vapour and dry air (-)
pa = atmospheric pressure (kPa)
pa = density of moist air (kg/m3)

For a wet crop surface with an ample water supply, the Penman equation (5.20) can
then be modified (Monteith 1965; Rijtema 1965) to read

(5.23)

Because the psychrometric constant y = cppa/hs, Equation 5.23 reduces to

(5.24)

where
ET,,, = wet-surface crop evapotranspiration rate (kg/m2s)
CP = specific heat of dry air at constant pressure (J/kg K)

This ET,,, can easily be converted into equivalent mm/d by multiplying it by 86 400.

Note that evapotranspiration from a completely wet crop/soil surface is not restricted
by.crop or soil properties. ET,,, thus primarily depends on the governing atmospheric
conditions.

5.6.2 Dry Crops with Full Soil Cover : the Penman-Monteith Approach

Following the discussion of De Bruin (1982) on Monteith's concept for a dry vegetated
surface, we can treat the vegetation layer simply as if it were one big leaf. The actual
transpiration process (liquid water changing into vapour) takes place in cavities below
the stomata of this 'big leaf, and the air within these cavities will be saturated (pressure
e,) at leaf temperature, T, (Figure 5.6). Water vapour escapes through the stomata
to the outer 'leaf surface, where a certain lower vapour pressure reigns. It is assumed
that this vapour pressure at leaf temperature T, equals the saturated vapour pressure
e, at air temperature Ta. During this diffusion, a 'big leaf stomatal resistance, ro is

157
 AERODYNAMIC
DIFFUSION

Figure 5.6 The path ofwater vapour through a leaf stoma, showing relevant vapour pressures, temperatures,
and resistances

encountered. As the vapour subsequently moves from the leaf surface to the external
air, where actual vapour pressure, ed, is present, an aerodynamic resistance is
encountered. When the vapour diffusion rate through the stomata equals the vapour
transport rate into the external air, we can write

(5.25)

where, in addition to the earlier defined E, pa, and pa

E, = isothermal evapotranspiration rate from the canopy (kg/m2s)
e, = internal saturated vapour pressure at T, (kPa)
ea = saturated vapour pressure at the ‘leaf surface at Ta(kPa)
ed = vapour pressure in the external air (kPa)
ra = aerodynamic resistance (s/m)
r, = canopy diffusion resistance (s/m)

From Equation 5.25, it follows that a canopy with r, can be formally described with
the same equation as ET,,,, if the vapour pressure difference (e, - ed)in Equation 5.24
is replaced by
e, - ed
e, - ed = - (5.26)
I + ?

158
 According to Monteith (1965), the same effect is obtained if y is replaced by y*

y*=y
(1 + -3 (5.27)

1 The equation of Monteith for a dry vegetation then reads

(5.28)

where
ET = evapotranspiration rate from a dry crop surface (kg/m2s)
I y* = modified psychrometric constant (kPa/"C)

This Penman-Monteith equation is valid for a dry crop completely shading the ground.
Note that for a wet crop covered with a thin water layer, rc becomes zero and the
I
wet-crop formulation (Equation 5.24) is obtained again.
Equation 5.28 is, in principle, not able to describe the evapotranspiration from
sparsely-cropped surfaces. With a sparsely-cropped surface, the evaporation from the
soil might become dominant.
It appears that the canopy resistance, rc, of a dry crop completely covering the
ground has a non-zero minimum value if the water supply in the rootzone is optimal
(i.e. under conditions of potential evapotranspiration). For arable crops, this
minimum amounts to rc = 30 s/m; that of a forest is about 150 s/m.

The canopy resistance is a complex function of incoming solar radiation, water vapour
deficit, and soil moisture. The relationship between rc and these environmental
quantities varies from species to species and also depends on soil type. It is not possible
to measure rc directly. It is usually determined experimentally with the use of the
Penman-Monteith equation, where ET is measured independently (e.g. by the soil
water balance or micro-meteorological approach). The problem is that, with this
approach, the aerodynamic resistance, ra, has to be known. Owing to the crude
description of the vegetation layer, this quantity is poorly defined. It is important,
however, to know where to determine the surface temperature, T,. Because, in a real
vegetation, pronounced temperature gradients occur, it is very difficult to determine
T, precisely. In many studies, ra is determined very crudely. This implies that some
of the rc values published in literature are biased because of errors made in ra (De
Bruin 1982).
Alternatively, one sometimes relates rc to single-leaf resistances as measured with
a porometer, and with the leaf area index, I,, according to rc = r,eaf/0.51,.If such
measurements are not available, a rough indication of rc can be obtained from taking
rleafto be 100 s/m.
The aerodynamic resistance, ra, can be represented as

(5.29)

159
where
z = height at which wind speed is measured (m)
d = displacement height (m)
zo, = roughness length for momentum (m)
zo, = roughness length for water vapour (m)
K = von Kármán constant (-); equals 0.41
u, = wind speed measured at height z (m/s)

One recognizes in Equation 5.29, the wind speed, u, increasing logarithmically with
height, z. The canopy, however, shifts the horizontal asymptote upwards over a
displacement height d, and u, becomes zero at a height d +
zo (Figure 5.7).
Displacement d is dependent on crop height h and is often estimated as
d = 0.67 h; with zo, = 0.123 h; and zo, = O. 1 zo,
In practice, Equation 5.28 is often applied to calculate potential evapotranspiration
ET,, using the mentioned minimum value of rc and the relevant value of ra. It can
also be used to demonstrate the effect of a sub-optimal water supply to a crop. The
reduced turgor in the leaves will lead to a partial closing of the stomata, and thus
to an increase in the canopy resistance, rc. A higher rc leads to a higher y*, and
consequently to a lower ET than ET,.

The superiority of the Penman-Monteith approach (Equation 5.28) over the FAO
Modified Penman approach (Equation 5.21) is clearly shown in Figure 5.8. The
Penman-Monteith estimates of monthly evapotranspiration of grass or alfalfa agreed
better with lysimeter-measured values than FAO Modified Penman estimates.
Equation 5.28 is also used nowadays to calculate a reference evapotranspiration,
ET,,. The reference crop is then the aforementioned (Section 5.2) hypothetical crop,
with a canopy resistance rc, and fully covering the ground. This crop is not short of
water, so that the minimum rc of 70 s/m applies. It has a crop height of 12 cm, so
that the displacement height d and also the roughness lengths zo, and zo, are fixed.
For the standard measuring height z = 2 m and applying Equation 5.29 we find that

Figure 5.7 The aerodynamic wind profile, illustrating the displacement, d, and the roughness length, zo

160
calculated evapotranspiration
in m m l d

'enman- Monteitb

owl I 1 I I 1 I I I I I

O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 8 9 10 11 12
lysimeter evapotranspiration in mmld
Figure 5.8 Comparison of monthly average lysimeter data for 1 I locations with computed evapo-
transpiration rates for the FAO Modified Penman method and the Penman-Monteith approach
(after Jensen et al. 1990)

ra = 208/u,. In that case, y* = (1 + 0.337 u&. These values and values for other
constants can be entered into Equation 5.28, which then produces, with the proper
meteorological data, a value for the reference evapotranspiration, denoted by ETh
(see Section 5.7.2).

Potential evapotranspiration from other cropped surfaces could be calculated with

minimum values of rc and the appropriate crop height. As long as minimum rc values
are not available, one may use the above reference evapotranspiration, ETh, and
multiply it by the proper crop coefficient to arrive at the ET, of that particular crop,
as will be discussed further in Section 5.7.1.

5.6.3 Partial Soil Cover and Full Water Supply

If, under the governing meteorological conditions, enough water is available for
evapotranspiration from the soil and the crop (and if the meteorological conditions
are unaffected by the evapotranspiration process itself), we may consider evapo-
transpiration to be potential: ET,. Hence, we can write
ET, = E, + T, (5.30)
where
E, = potential soil evaporation
T, = potential plant transpiration

161
As argued before, the Penman-Monteith approach (Equation 5.28) works only under
the condition of a complete soil cover.
If we want to estimate the potential evaporation of a soil under a crop cover, we
can compute it from a simplified form of Equation 5.24 by neglecting the aerodynamic
term and taking into account only that fraction of R, which reaches the soil surface
(Ritchie 1972)

(5.31)

where
E, = potential soil evaporation rate (kg/m2s)
R, = net radiation flux density reaching the soil (W/m2)
II = leaf area index (m’ leaf area/m2soil area) (-)
k = a proportionality factor, which may vary according to the geometrical
properties of a crop (-)

Ritchie (1972) took k = 0.39 for crops like sorghum and cotton; Feddes et al. (1978)
applied this value to crops like potatoes and grass. More recent views are based on
considerations of the extinction coefficient for diffuse visible light, K,, which varies
with crop type from 0.4 to 1.1. A satisfactory relationship for k might be k = 0.75
KD.

By subtracting E, (Equation 5.31) from ET, obtained through Equation 5.28, using
minimum rc values, we can then derive T, from Equation 5.30 as T, = ET, - E,.
On soils with partial soil cover (e.g. row crops in their early growth stage), the condition
of the soil - dry or wet - will considerably influence the partitioning of ET, over E,
and T,. Figure 5.9 gives an idea of the computed variation of T,/ET, as a function
of the leaf area index, I,, for a potato crop with optimum water supply to the roots
for a dry and a wet soil, respectively, as computed by the simulation program
SWATRE of Belmans et al. (1983).
If we assume that ET, is the same for both dry and wet soil, it appears that for
I, < I , with increasing drying of the soil and thus decreasing E T, will increase by
P’
a factor of approximately 1.5 to 2 per unit I,. For I, > 2-2.5, E, is small and virtually
independent of the moisture condition of the soil surface. This result agrees with the
findings on red cabbage by Feddes (1971) that the soil must be covered for about
70 to 80% (II = 2) before E, becomes constant. Similar results are reported for
measurements on sorghum and cotton.

The above results show that the Penman-Monteith approach (Equation 5.28) can be
considered reasonably valid for leaf area indices I, > 2. Below this value, one can
regard it as a better-than-nothing approximation.

Note: The partitioning of ET, into T, and E, is important if one is interested in the
effects of water use on crop growth and crop production. Crop growth is directly
related to transpiration. (For more details, see Feddes 1985.)

162
1.o

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

C
O 1 .o 2.0 3.0 4.0 O
leal area index I I

Figure 5.9 Potential transpiration, T,, as a fraction of potential evapotranspiration, ET,, in relation to
the leaf area index, I,, for a daily-wetted soil surface and for a dry soil surface

5.6.4 Limited Soil-Water Supply

Under limited soil-water availability, evapotranspiration will be reduced because the

canopy resistance increases as a result of the partial closure of the stomata. Such a
limitation in available soil water occurs naturally if soil water extracted from the
rootzone by evapotranspiration is not replenished in time by rainfall, irrigation, or
capillary rise. Another reason for a reduced water availability is a high soil-water
salinity, whereby the osmotic potential of the soil solution prevents water from moving
to the roots in a sufficient quantity.
Actual evapotranspiration, ET, can be determined from soil water balances by
lysimetry, and with micro-meterological techniques, as were discussed in Section 5.3.
For large areas, remote sensing can provide an indirect measure of ET. Using
reflection images to detect the type of crop, and thermal infra-red images from satellite
or airplane observations for crop surface temperatures, one can transform these data
into daily evapotranspiration rates using surface-energy-balance models (e.g.
Thunnissen and Nieuwenhuis 1989; Visser et al. 1989). The underlying principle is

163
that, for the same crop and growth stage, a below-potential evapotranspiration means
a partial closure of the stomata (and increased rc), a lower transpiration rate inside
the sub-stomatal cavities, and hence a higher leaf/canopy temperature (Section 5.6.2).
Another way to estimate ET is by using a soil-water-balance model such as
SWATRE (Feddes et al. 1978; Belmans et al. 1983), which describes the transient
water flow in the heterogenous soil-root system that may or may not be influenced
by groundwater.

An example of the output of such a model is presented in Figure 5.10. It shows the
water-balance terms of the rootzone and the subsoil of a sandy soil that was covered
with grass during the very dry year 1976 in The Netherlands. A relatively shallow
watertable was present. Over 1976, the potential evapotranspiration, ET,, was 502
mm, actual ET was 361 mm, which implies a strong reduction of potential evapo-
transpiration. Net infiltration, I, amounted to 197 mm. Water extraction from the
rootzone in this rather light soil was 56 mm, which is only 16% of ET. The decrease
in water storage in the subsoil amounted to 206 mm, of which 107 mm (30% of ET)
had been delivered by capillary rise towards the rootzone, and 99 mm had been lost
to the saturated zone by deep percolation.

z in m I = 197 mm ET= 361 mm

I

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .= .107" . . . . . . . . . .
-O . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ .... ...
. .. ... .. . .. ... .. G
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .
-.. .. .. .initial hatertable .-. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. r .. .T -. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..

-1 .I
., . ,. . ,. . : . AW, = -206mm.:. : . : .:. : 1. .:
. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .
. .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ...
. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-l.! . .. . .. . ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..

-2.1
R = -99 mm

Figure 5.10 Schematic presentation of the water balance terms (mm) of the rootzone (0-0.3 m) and the
subsoil (0.3-2.0 m) of a sandy soil over the growing season (1 April - 1 October) of the very
dry year 1976 in The Netherlands. The watertable dropped from 0.7 m to 1.8 m during the
growing season (after De Graaf and Feddes 1984)

164
 The input data for SWATRE consist of:
- Data on the hydraulic conductivity and moisture retention curves of the major soil
horizons;
- Rooting depths and watertables (if present);
- Calculated potential evapotranspiration;
- Precipitation and/or irrigation:

If such a water-balance model is coupled with a crop-growth and crop production

model, the actual development of the crop over time can be generated. Hence, actual
evapotranspiration can be determined, depending on the every-day history of the crop.
Such a model can be helpful in irrigation scheduling, but it can also be used to analyze
drainage situations.

5.7 Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration

I
5.7.1 Reference Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficients

To estimate crop water requirements, one can relate ET, from the crop under
consideration to an estimated reference evapotranspiration, ET,,, by means of a crop
coefficient
ET, =.k, ET,,F (5.32)
where
ET, = potential evapotranspiration rate (mm/d)
k, = crop coefficient (-)
ETref= reference evapotranspiration rate (mm/d)

The reference evapotranspiration could, in principle, be any evaporation parameter,

such as pan evaporation, the Blaney-Criddle ET (Equation 5.8 without the crop
coefficient, k), the Penman open water evaporation, E, (Equation 5.20), the FAO
Modified Penman ET, (Equation 5.21), or the Penman-Monteith ET,, (Equation 5.28).
For the calculation of ET, and the corresponding crop coefficients, extensive
procedures have been given by Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977). Smith (1990) concluded
that the sound and practical methods of determining crop water requirements as
introduced by Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) are to a large extent still valid. And so,
too, are their lists of crop factors for various crops at different growth stages, if used
in combination with ET,.

In the Penman-Monteith approach, we d o not have sufficient data on minimum

canopy resistance to apply Equation 5.28 generally, by inserting crop-specific
minimum r, values. Therefore, for the time being, a two-step approach may be
followed, in which we represent the effects of climate on potential evapotranspiration
by first calculating ETh, and adding a crop coefficient to account for crop-specific
influences on ET,.
In the two-step approach, the crop coefficient, k,, depends not only on the
characteristic of the crop, its development stage, and the prevailing meteorological

165
conditions, but also on the selected ETrermethod. Choosing the Penman-Monteith
approach means that crop coefficients related to this method should be used.
Although it is recognized that alfalfa better resembles an average field crop, the
new hypothetical reference crop closely resembles a short, dense grass cover, because
most standard meteorological observations are made in grassed meteorological
enclosures. In this way, the measured evapotranspiration of (reference) crops used
in the various lysimeter and other evaporation studies (grass, alfalfa, Kikuyu grass)
can be more meaningfully converted to the imaginary reference crop in the Penman-
Monteith approach.

Standardization of certain parameters in the Penman-Monteith equation has led to

the following definition (Smith 1990):
‘The reference evapotranspiration, ET,, is defined as the rate of evapo-
transpiration from an hypothetical crop with an assumed crop height (12 cm),
and a fixed canopy 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.’

Procedures to calibrate measured potential evapotranspiration to the newly-adopted

standard ET, values in accordance with the above definition are then required.

To convert the Doorenbos and Pruitt (DP) crop factors, kcDP,to new crop factors,
kcPM,and supposing that ET, is the same in both cases, we can write
ET, = k,DPET, = k,PMETh (5.33)
from which

(5.34)

The conversion factor ET,/ETh can easily be derived from long-term meteorological
records (e.g. per 10-day period).

Note that crop factors are generally derived from fields with different local conditions
and agricultural practices. These local effects may thus include size of fields, advection,
irrigation and cultivation practices, climatological variations in time, distance, and
altitude, and soil water availability. One should therefore always be careful in applying
crop coefficients from experimental data.

As mentioned above, ETreris sometimes estimated with the pan evaporation method.
Extensive use and testing of the evaporation from standardized evaporation pans such
as the Class A pan have shown the great sensitivity of the daily evaporation of the
water in the pan. It can be influenced by a range of environmental conditions such
as wind, soil-heat flux, vegetative cover around the pan, painting and maintenance
conditions, or the use of screens. Using the pan evaporation method to estimate
reference evapotranspiration can only be recommended if the instrumentation and
the site are properly calibrated and managed.

166
5.7.2 Computing the Reference Evapotranspiration

Accepting the definition of the reference crop as given in Section 5.7.1, we can find
the reference evapotranspiration from the following combination formula, which is
based on the Penman-Monteith approach (Verhoef and Feddes 1991)

ET, =
A
~

+A y* R',, +&Ea (5.35)

where
ET, = reference crop evapotranspiration rate (mm/d)
A = slope of vapour pressure curve at Ta (kPa/"C)
y = psychrometric constant (kPa/"C)
y* = modified psychrometric constant (kPa/ "C)
R,' = radiative evaporation equivalent (mm/d)
Ea = aerodynamic evaporation equivalent (mm/d)

This formula is generally applicable, but, to apply it in a certain situation, we have

to know what meteorological data are available. As was indicated in Table 5.1, the
Penman-Monteith approach requires data on air temperature, solar radiation, relative
humidity, wind speed, aerodynamic resistance, and basic canopy resistance. For the
computation method that will be presented in this section, we assume that we have
the following information:
- General information:
The latitude of the station in degrees (positive for northern latitudes and negative
for southern latitudes);
The altitude of the station above sea level;
The measuring height of wind speed and other data is 2 m above ground level;
The month of the year for which we want to compute the reference evapo-
transpiration;
- Crop-specific information:
The canopy resistance equals 70 s/m;
The crop height is 12 cm;
The reflection coefficient equals 0.23; I

- Meteorological data:
Minimum and maximum temperatures ("C);
Solar radiation (W/m2);
Relative duration of bright sunshine (-);
Average relative humidity (%);
Wind speed (m/s).

To this situation, we apply the following computation procedure.

The weighting terms A/(A +

y*) and y/(A + y*) in front of the radiation and
aerodynamic evapotranspiration terms of Equation 5.35 contain y, y*, and A. These
variables are found as follows.

167
The psychrometric constant, y

y = 1615h (5.36)
h
where
pa = atmospheric pressure (kPa)
h = latent heat of vaporization (J/kg); value 2.45 x IO6
1615 = c,/E, or 1004.6 J/kg K divided by 0.622

The atmospheric pressure is related to altitude

Ta + 273.16 - 0.0065H
pa = 101.3
( Ta + 273.16
(5.37)

where
H = altitude above sea level (m)

The modified psychrometric constant, y*, can be found from Equation 5.27. We can
insert the standard value of 70 s/m for the reference crop and use Equation 5.29 to
find ra. With the appropriate values, we find ra = 208/u2,so that
y* = (1 + 0.337~2)~ (5.38)
The slope of the vapour pressure curve, A
4098 e,
A= (5.39)
(Ta + 237.3)2
where
Ta = average air temperature (“C);Ta = (T,,, + Tmi,)/2
e, = saturated vapour pressure (kPa), which follows from

(5.40)

The radiative evaporation equivalent follows from

R, - G
R’,, = 86400- (5.41)
h
where
R, = net radiation at the crop surface (W/m2)
G = heat flux density to the soil (W/m2);zero for periods of 10-30 days
h = latent heat of vaporization (J/kg); value 2.45 x lo6
Note that the number of seconds in a day.(86 400) appears, and that the density of
water (1000 kg/m3) has been omitted on the right, because it is numerically cancelled
out by the conversion from m to mm.
Net radiation is composed of two parts: net short-wave and net long-wave radiation:
R, = R,, - R,,. Net short-wave radiation can be described by
R,, = (1 - a)R, (5.42)

168
1 where
R,, = net short-wave radiation (W/m2)
CY = albedo, or canopy reflection coefficient (-); value 0.23 for the standard
reference crop
R, = solar radiation (W/m2)

The net long-wave radiation is represented by

R,,= (0.9; + 0.1) (0.34 - 0.139&) 0

( T G a x + TK&) (5.43)
2
where
R,, = net long-wave radiation (W/m2)
n = daily duration of bright sunshine (h)
N = day length (h)
ed = actual vapour pressure (kPa)
TK,,, = maximum absolute temperature (K)
TK,,, = minimum absolute temperature (K)
(3 = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (W/m2K4);equals 5.6745 x

The actual vapour pressure, ed,is found from

RH
ed =-e (5.44)
100 a

where
RH = relative humidity percentage (-)

The aerodynamic evaporation equivalent is computed from

(5.45)

where
u2 = wind speed measured at 2 m height (m/s)
e, = saturated vapour pressure (kPa)
ed = actual vapour pressure (kPa)

We arrive at Equation 5.45 by applying Equation 5.25, with (e,-ed). The ratio of
the molecular masses ofwater vapour and dry air equals 0.622. In addition, the density
of moist air can be expressed as
Pa (5.46)
Pa = 0.287 (Ta + 275)
in which 0.287 equals Ra,the specific gas constant for dry air (0.287 kJ/kg K), and
where the officially needed virtual temperature has been replaced by its approximate
equivalent (Ta +
275). Moreover, we can find ra from Equation 5.29 by applying
the standard measuring height of 2 m and the reference crop height of O. 12 m, which
gives, as was indicated in Section 5.6.2, ra = 208/u2.Hence, calculating 0.622 x 86400
/ 0.287 x 208 produces the factor 900.
169
The vapour pressure deficit in the aerodynamic term is e, - ed,

This calculation procedure may seem cumbersome at first, but scientific calculators
and especially micro-computers can assist in the computations. Micro-computer
programs that use the above equations to find the reference evapotranspiration are
available. One example is the program REF-ET, which is a reference evapo-
transpiration calculator that calculates ET,,, according to eight selected methods
(Allen 1991). These methods include Penman’s open water evaporation, the FAO
Modified Penman method, and also the Penman- Monteith approach. The program
CROPWAT (Version 5.7) not only calculates the Penman-Monteith reference ET,
but also allows a selection of crop coefficients to arrive at crop water requirements
(Smith 1992). The program further helps in calculating the water requirements for
irrigation schemes and in irrigation scheduling. For this program, a suitable database
(CLIMWAT) with agro-meteorological data from many stations around the world
is available. Verhoef and Feddes (1 991) produced a micro-computer program in
FORTRAN, which allows the rapid calculation of the reference crop evapo-
transpiration according to nine different methods, including the Penman-Monteith
equation, and for a variety of available data.
The above mentioned computation methods contain a few empirical coefficients,
which may be estimated differently by different authors. In the Penman-Monteith
crop reference procedure presented here, however, we have used the recommended
relationships and coefficients (Smith 1990), as were also used by Shuttleworth (1 992).
This procedure should reduce any still-existing confusion.

Calculation Examples
Table 5.2 shows the results of applying the above procedure to one year’s monthly
data from two meteorological stations in existing drainage areas: one in Mansoura,
Egypt, and the other in Hyderabad, Pakistan, both from the database used by Verhoef
and Feddes (1991). The relevant input data are listed as well as the calculatedreference
evapotranspiration.
A comparison of the ETh-values for the two stations clearly shows the importance
of wind speed, or, more generally, of the aerodynamic term. Radiation, sunshine
duration, and temperatures do not differ greatly at the two stations, yet the ET, for
Hyderabad is up to twice that for Mansoura. This is mainly due to a large difference
in wind speed, and, to a lesser extent, in relative humidity, which together determine
the aerodynamic term.
It should be realized that the described procedure would be slightly different for
other data availability. If solar radiation is not measured, R, can be estimated from
sunshine duration and radiation at the top of the atmosphere (extra-terrestrial
radiation). Also, if relative humidity data are not available, the actual vapour pressure
can be estimated from approximate relationships. Minimum and maximum
temperatures may not be available, but only averages. Such different data conditions
can be catered for (see e.g. Verhoef and Feddes 1991).We shall not mention all possible
cases. The main computational structure for finding 10-day or monthly average ETh-
values has been adequately described above, and only one different condition (i.e.
that of missing data on solar radiation) is discussed below.

170
 Table 5.2 Computed reference evapotranspiration for two meteorological stations, following the described
Penman-Monteith procedure

Month Tmin Tmax Rs n/N RH u2

("(3 ("Cl (W/m2) (-1 (%) (ds) (mm/d)
Mansoura, Egypt (Altitude 30 m)
January 7.0 19.5 133 0.69 68 1.3 1.5
February 7.5 20.5 167 0.71 59 1.4 2.2
March 9.3 23.2 212 0.73 61 1.7 3.1
April 12.0 27.1 250 0.75 51 1.5 4.1
May 15.6 33.2 279 0.78 43 1.5 5.3
June 18.6 33.6 303 0.85 55 1.5 5.6
July 20.5 32.6 295 0.84 66 1.3 5.2
August 20.5 33.5 280 0.86 66 1.3 5.0
September 19.0 32.5 245 0.85 61 1.1 4.2
October 17.1 28.7 200 0.83 63 1.o 3.0
November 14.0 25.8 153 0.77 63 1.1 2.1
December 9.2 21.2 122 0.66 64 1.1 1.5
Hyderabad, Pakistan (Altitude 28 m)
January 10.1 24.2 169 0.79 45 2.2 3.1
February 12.8 28.4 20 1 0.81 41 2.2 4.1
March 17.7 34.2 243 0.84 37 2.7 6.0
April 22.2 39.4 253 0.74 36 3.4 7.8
i May 25.9 42.3 284 0.81 41 5.4 10.3
June 27.9 40.6 262 0.68 53 7.1 9.9
July 27.5 37.5 255 0.66 60 6.6 8.3
August 26.5 36.1 235 0.62 62 6.4 7.5
September 25.1 36.8 240 0.76 59 5.4 7.3
October 21.5 37.1 223 0.86 44 2.7 5.8
November 16.2 32.2 183 0.83 42 1.8 3.8
December 11.8 26.4 167 0.86 47 2.0 3.0

Missing Radiation Data

Many agrometerological stations that do not have a solarimeter to record the solar
radiation do have a Campbell-Stokes sunshine recorder to record the duration of
bright sunshine. In that case, R, can be conveniently estimated from

R, = (a + b;)RA (5.47)

where
R, = solar radiation (W/m')
a = fraction of extraterrestrial radiation on overcast days (-)
+
a b = fraction of extraterrestrial radiation on clear days (-)
RA = extraterrestrial radiation, or Angot value (W/m2)
n = duration of bright sunshine (h)
N = day length (h)
Although a distinction is sometimes made between (semi-)arid, humid tropical, and
other climates, reasonable estimates of the Angstrom values, a and b, for average
climatic conditions are a = 0.25 and b = 0.50. If locally established values are
available, these should be used. The day length, N, and the extraterrestrial radiation,
RA,are astronomic values which can be approximated with the following equations.
As extra input, they require the time of year and the station’s latitude
RA = 435 d, (o,
sincp sin6 + coscp cos6 sin o,) (5.48)
where
d, = relative distance between the earth and the sun (-)
o,= sunset hour angle (rad)
6 = declination of the sun (rad)
cp = latitude (rad); northern latitude positive; southern negative

The relative distance, d,, is found from

d, = 1 + 0 . 0 3 3 ~ 027cJ
~-
365
(5.49)

where
J = Julian day, or day of the year (J = 1 for January 1); for monthly values,
J can be found as the integer value of 30.42 x M - 15.23, where M is
the number ofthemonth (1-12)

The declination 6 is calculated from

6 =
(
0.4093 sin 27c-
:Ag4) (5.50)

The sunset-hour angle is found from

o,= arccos(-tancp tan6) (5.51)
The maximum possible sunshine hours, or the day length, N, can be found from
24
N=-o, (5.52)
7c

For the Mansoura station (Table 5.2), which lies at 3 1 .O3 o northern latitude, supposing
that R, is not available and that n = 7.1 hours, this amended procedure produces
a January ET,, = 1.7 mm/d, not much different from the 1.5 mm/d mentioned in
Table 5.2.

References
Aboukhaled, A., A. Alfaro, and M. Smith 1982. Lysimeters. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 39. FAO, Rome.
68 p.
Allen, R.G. 1991. REF-ET Reference evapotranspiration calculator, version 2. I . Utah State University,
Logan. 39 p.
Belmans, C . , J.G. Wesseling and R.A. Feddes 1983. Simulation model of the water balance of a cropped
soil. J. Hydrol. 63(3/4), pp. 271-286.

172
Blaney, H.F. and W.D. Criddle 1950. Determining water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological
and irrigation data. USDA Soil Cons. Serv. SCS-TP 96. Washington, D.C. 44 p.
Braden, H. 1985. Energiehaushalts- und Verdunstungsmodell fÜr Wasser- und Stoffhaushaltsunter-
suchungen landwirtschaftlich genutzter Einzugsgebiete. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen
Gesellschaft 42, pp. 254-299.
D e Bruin, H.A.R. 1982. The energy balance of the earth’s surface : a practical approach. Thesis, Agricultural
University, Wageningen, 177 p.
De Graaf, M. and R.A. Feddes 1984. Model SWATRE. Simulatie van de waterbalans van grasland in
het Hupselse beekgebied over de periode 1976 t/m 1982. Nota Inst. voor Cultuurtechniek en
Waterhuishouding, Wageningen. 34 p.
Doorenbos, J. 1976. Agrometeorological field stations. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 27. FAO, Rome,
94 p.
Doorenbos, J. and W.O. Pruitt 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 24,2nd ed., FAO, Rome, 156 p.
Feddes, R.A. 1971. Water, heat, and crop growth. Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen. 184 p.
Feddes, R.A. 1985. Crop water use and dry matter production: state of the art. In: A. Perrier and C. Kiou
(Eds), Proceedings Conference Internationale de la CIID sur les Besoins en Eau des Cultures, Paris,
11-14September 1984: pp. 221-235.
Feddes, R.A., P.J. Kowalik and H. Zaradny 1978. Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Simulation
Monographs. PUDOC, Wageningen, 189 p.
Jensen, M.E. and H.R. H a k e 1963. Estimatingevapotranspiration from solar radiation. J. Irrig. and Drain.
Div., ASCE 96, pp. 25-28.
Jensen, M.E., R.D. Burman and R.G. Allen 1990. Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements.
ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice 70. ASCE, New York, 332 p.
Monteith, J.L. 1965. Evaporation and the Environment. In: G.E. Fogg (ed.), The state and movement
of water in living organisms. Cambridge University Press. pp. 205-234.
Penman, H.L. 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil, and grass. Proceedings, Royal Society,
London 193, pp. 120-146.
Rijtema, P.E. 1965. An analysis of actual evapotranspiration. Thesis Agricultural University, Wageningen.
111 p.
Ritchie, J.T. 1972. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water
Resources Research 8, pp. 1204-1213.
Shuttleworth, W.J. 1992. Evaporation. In: D.R. Maidment (ed.), Handbook of hydrology. McGraw Hill,
New York, pp. 4.1-4.53.
Smith, M.1990. Draft report on the expert consultation on revision of FAO methodologies for crop water
requirements. FAO, Rome, 45 p.
Smith, M. 1992. CROPWAT : A computer program for irrigation planning and management. Irrigation
and Drainage Paper 46, FAO, Rome, 126 p.
Thunnissen, H.A.M. and G.J.A. Nieuwenhuis 1989. An application of remote sensing and soil water balance
simulation models to determine the effect of groundwater extraction on crop evapotranspiration.
Agricultural Water Management 15, pp. 315-332.
Turc, L. 1954. Le bilan d’eau des sols. Relations entre les précipitations, I’évaporation et I’écoulement.
Ann. Agron. 6, pp. 5- 131.
Verhoef, A. and R.A. Feddes 1991. Preliminary review of revised FAO radiation and temperature methods.
Department of Water Resources Report 16. Agricultural University, Wageningen, I16 p.
Visser, T.N.M., M. Menenti and J.A. Morabito 1989. Digital analysis of satellite data and numerical
simulation applied to irrigation water management by means of a database system. Report Winand
Staring Centre, Wageningen. 9 p.
Von Hoyningen-Hüne, J. 1983. Die Interception des Niederschlags in landwirtschaftlichen Beständen.
Schriftenreihedes DVWK 57, pp. 1-53.

173