A1 Batch Project Report Final

KARNATAK LAW SOCIETY’S
GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-590008
(An Autonomous Institution under Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)

(APPROVED BY AICTE, NEW DELHI)
Department of Civil Engineering
A Project Report on
“COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT POTENTIAL

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATION APPROACHES, AT BELAGAVI
REGION”
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Engineering
in
Civil Engineering
Submitted by
CHAITRA PATIL 2GI17CV024

AKASH JELAJI 2GI17CV007
ANAND L 2GI17CV008
ANTARA JATTI 2GI17CV011
Under the guidance of
Prof. Namrata Angadi
KARNATAK LAW SOCIETY’S
GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-590008
(An Autonomous Institution under Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)

(APPROVED BY AICTE, NEW DELHI)
Department of Civil Engineering
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the project entitled CHANGE OF LAND USE AND LAND COVER OVER
GHATAPRABHA RIVER BASIN carried out by Ms. KAVYA GADAD USN:2GI17CV036,
Ms. MAMATA VAJJARAMATTI USN: 2GI17CV044, Mr. KARTIK RATHOD
USN:2GI17CV034 , Mr. JUMMANNA ANGADI USN:2GI17CV033 , students of KLS Gogte
Institute of Technology, Belagavi, can be considered as a bonafide work for partial fulfillment
for the award of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering of the Visvesvaraya
Technological University, Belagavi during the year 2019-2020. It is certified that all
corrections/suggestions indicated have been incorporated in the report. The project report has
been approved as it satisfies the academic requirements prescribed for the said Degree.
Guide Co-Guide HOD Principal
Date:
Final Viva-Voce
Name of the examiners Date of Viva -voce Signature

1.
2.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The constant acknowledgement of all the sources has gone a long way in the
accomplishment of this project. It is our duty to thank all those who have been helpful in
various ways towards successful completion of this project.
My sincere thanks to Prof. Namrata Angadi, Department of Civil Engineering, KLS

Gogte institute of Technology, Belagavi and Dr. V.G.Mutalik Desai, Head of the
Department of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte institute of Technology, Belagavi, for their
valuable support and encouragement extended to pursue this project work.
We take this opportunity to thank to the whole teaching and non-teaching staff of
Civil Engineering Department, KLS Gogte institute of Technology, Belagavi, for their help
and valuable suggestions.
Finally, we are extremely thankful to our parents for their continuous and financial
support. Their support and love always encouraged us significantly.
3
ABSTRACT
Accurate estimation of potential evapotranspiration is necessary step in water resources

management. Recently, the FAO-56 version of Penman-Monteith equation has been
established as a standard for calculating reference evapotranspiration (ET0). Still there are
different approaches (requiring less data) which estimate ET0 closely to Penman-Monteith
method for different climatological conditions.
Performance Evaluation of all the approaches on the same basis is requirement for
selecting an alternative approach in accordance with available data. Therefore, two most
popular temperature-based approaches (Hargreaves and Thornthwaite) and two radiation
based approaches (Priestley-Taylor and Turc) were used to estimate monthly potential
evapotranspiration (ET0) at Belagavi, Karnataka, India.
With crop coefficient approach (single crop coefficient) for the estimation values of
reference evapotranspiration (ET0) and crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions
(ETc) from different land use / land cover. One year monthly meteorological data (Jan
2019-Dec2019) were used in Belagavi area. The study area lies geographically between 150
52' 53.87" N latitude and 740 28' 8.02" E longitudes with mean sea level 760m. The
reference crop that used for calculating ET0 was considered as a hypothetical crop within
an assumed height 0.12m having a surface resistance 70sm-1 and an albedo of 0.23. The
standard conditions refer to crops grown in large fields under excellent agronomic and soil
conditions.
The Regression analysis and Statistical Error analysis are made between estimated ET0
from all four methods and standard FAO Penman-Monteith method and the best method
among four are evaluated. In Rabi season Thornthwaite method holds the first rank of best
method among all four methods for estimating Potential evapotranspiration (ET0) and less
data is required for this method. It is observed that in Kharif season Hargreaves method
performed better that all the other methods with lowest RMSE i.e. 4.05 and lowest AAD
i.e. 16.47. In summer season the R2 value of all the methods are low and it is observed that
the values of RMSE in summer season are high in case of all methods. However the
performances of Hargreaves method in summer season in appreciable as compared to all
other methods as it utilizes very small amount of meteorological data and provide fairly
accurate results of ET0.
Keywords: Evapotranspiration , FAO56,Penman-monteith Method, Hargreaves Method,

Thornthwaite Method, Turc Method, Pristly-Taylor method, Regression analysis, Statistical
Error analysis, Belagavi area
4
CONTENTS
Abstract
Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Notations
Chapter Title Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-11
1.1 Evapotranspiration Process 1
1.2 Factors affecting Evapotranspiration 4
1.3 Evapotranspiration Concepts 5
1.4 Determination of Evapotranspiration 9
1.5 Scope of study 10
1.6 Objectives of the present study 10
1.7 Organization of the report 11
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 13-15
3.0 DIFFERENT METHODS OF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATION 16-39
3.1 FAO PENMAN-MONTEITH METHOD 16-31

3.1.1 Reference ET0 10
3.1.2 Formulation of Penman-Monteith Equation 10
3.1.3 FAO Penman-Monteith Equation 19
5
3.1.4 Meterological data 21
3.1.5 Atmospheric parameters 22
3.1.6 Air temperature 24
3.1.7 Air humidity 24
3.1.8 Calculation procedure for air humidity 25
3.1.9 Calculation procedure for radiation 27
3.1.10 Wind speed 30
3.2 Temperature Based Methods 31-34
3.2.1 Hargreaves potential evapotranspiration method 31
3.2.2 Thornthwaite method 33
3.3 Radiation Based Methods 34-39
3.3.1 Turc Method of Evapotranspiration 34
3.3.2 Pristly-Taylor Method 37
4.0 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF THE STUDY AREA 40-65

4.1 General 40
4.2 Details of study area 40
4.3 Land use 42
4.4 Determination of ET0 and ETc 43-57
4.4.1 Reference evapotranspiration (ET0) 43
4.4.2 Crop evapotranspiration(ETc) 46
4.4.3 Regressions Analysis 46
4.4.4 Statistical error analysis 47
4.4.5 Calculation procedure 48
4.4.6 Crop growth stages 51
4.4.7 Single-crop coefficient approach (Kc) 53
4.4.8 Crop coefficient curve 54
4.4.9 Calculation procedure for crop 55
evapotranspiration (ETc)
4.4.10 Length of growth stages 55
4.4.11 Crop coefficients 56
4.4.12 Calculation procedure for Regression analysis 57
4.4.13 Calculation procedure for Statistical error analysis 57
6
4.5 Calculation of Reference evapotranspiration (ET0) 58
5.0 RESULTS ,DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 66-75
5.1 ETc for different Agricultural Plantations 66
5.2 Regressions analysis and statistical error analysis 66
(Seasonal analysis)
5.3 Conclusions
REFERENCES 76
BIBILIOGRAPHY 77
APPENDIX- 78-
86
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Description Page No.
1.1 Average ET0 for different agro climatic regions in mm/day 8
4.1 Percentage Area of the earth land use / land cover type 42
4.2 Crop coefficient (Kc) 56
4.3 Statistics of Monthly climatic data 58
4.4 Average values of the calculated parameters 59
4.5 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by FAO Penman-Monteith method 60
4.6 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Hargreaves Method 60
4.7 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Thornthwaite Method 61
4.8 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Turc Method 61
4.9 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Pristly –Taylor Method 62
5.1 ETc values of different crops in mm/season by FAO-Penman monteith method 68
5.2 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Hargreaves Method 68
5.3 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Thornthwaite Method 69
5.4 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Turc Method 69
5.5 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Pristly-Taylor Method 70
5.6 Summary statistics of regression and error analysis 70
5.7 Summary Regression analysis 71
5.8 Error analysis between values of standard and estimated ET0 for three seasons 71
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. No. Description Page NO.
1.1 Schematic representation of a stoma 2
1.2 The partitioning of evapotranspiration into evaporation and 3
Transpiration over the growing period for an annual field crop.
1.3 3 Factors affecting evapotranspiration with reference to related ET 4
concepts
1.4 Reference evapotranspiration (ET0),crop evapotranspiration(ETc) 6
under standard and non- standard conditions (ETc adj )
4.1 Google Earth Satellite Imagery showing study area 40
4.2 Location map of study area 41
4.3 The effect of evaporation on Kc 51
4.4 Generalized crop coefficient curve for the single crop 52
coefficient approach
4.5 Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by FAO 63
Penman-Monteith method
4.6 Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by 63
Hargreaves Method
Thornthwaite method
9
Turc method
Pristly-Taylor method
5.1 Crop evapotranspiration by FAO-Penman monteith method 72
5.2 Crop evapotranspiration by Hargreaves method 72
5.3 Crop evapotranspiration by Thornthwaite method 73
5.4 Crop evapotranspiration by Turc method 73
5.5 Crop evapotranspiration by Pristly-Taylor method 74
5.6 Comparison of crop evapotranspiration of different methods 74
10
NOTATIONS
Notations Description
as fraction of extraterrestrial radiation reaching the earth on an overcast day [-]
as+ bs fraction of extraterrestrial radiation reaching the earth on a clear day [-]
cp specific heat [MJ kg-1 0C-1]
e0 (T) saturation vapour pressure at air temperature T [K Pa]
es saturation vapour pressure for a given time period [K Pa]
ea actual vapour pressure [K Pa]
es -ea saturation vapour pressure [K Pa]
ET evapotranspiration [mm day-1]
ET0 reference crop evapotranspiration [mm day-1]
ETc crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions [mm day-1]
ETc adj crop evapotranspiration under non-standard conditions [mm day-1]
exp [x] 2.7183 (base of natural logarithm) raised to the power x
Gday soil heat flux for day and ten-day periods [MJ m-2 day-1]
Kc crop coefficient [-]
Kc ini crop coefficient during the initial growth stage [-]
Kc mid crop coefficient during the mid- season growth stage [-]
Kc end crop coefficient at end of the late season growth stage [-]
Kc max maximum value of crop coefficient (following rain or irrigation) [-]
Kc min minimum value of crop coefficient (dry soil with no ground cover) [-]
Ks water stress coefficient [-]
11
Notations
LAI active active (sunlit) leaf area index [-]
N maximum possible sunshine duration in a day, daylight hours [hour]
n actual duration of sunshine in a say [hour]
n/N relative sunshine duration [-]
Ra extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
Rn net radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
Rnl net long wave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
Rns net solar or shortwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
Rs solar or shortwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
Rso clear-sky solar or clear-sky shortwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
Ra aerodynamic resistance [s m-1]
rs (bulk) surface or relative shortwave radiation [s m-1]
Rs/Rso relative solar or relative shortwave radiation [-]
RH relative humidity [%]
RH max daily maximum relative humidity [%]
RHmean daily mean relative humidity [%]
RH min daily minimum relative humidity [%]
T air temperature [0C]
Tmax daily maximum air temperature [0C]
Tmax,k daily maximum air temperature [K]
Tmean daily mean air temperature [0C]
12
NOTAIONS
Tmin daily minimum air temperature [0C]
Tmin,k daily minimum air temperature [K]
t time [hour]
u2 wind speed at 2 m above ground surface [m s-1]
uz wind speed at z m above ground surface [m s-1]
z elevation, height above sea level [m]
zh height of humidity measurement [m]
zm height of wind measurement [m]
zom roughness length governing momentum transfer [m]
zoh roughness length governing heat and vapour transfer [m]
α albedo [-]
ϒ psychometric constant [K Pa 0C-1]
∆ slope of saturation vapour pressure curve [K Pa 0C-1]
λ latent heat of vaporization [MJ kg-1]
λET latent heat of flux [MJ m-2 day-1]
σ Stefan- Boltzmann constant [4.903X10-9 MJ K-4 m-2 day-1]
RMSE Root mean square error
AAD Absolute average deviation
ARE Absolute relative error
13
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATION APPROACHES, AT BELAGAVI REGION”
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the concepts of and the differences between refence crop
evapotranspiration (ETo ) and crop evaportnaspiration under standard condition (ETc) and
various management and environmental conditions (ETcadj).
1.1 Evapotranspiration Process

The combination of two separate processes whereby water is lost on the one hand from
the soil surface by evaporation and on the other hand from the crop by transpiration is
referred to as evapotranspiration(ET).
1.1.1 Evaporation
Evaporation is the process whereby liquid water is converted to water vapour

(vapourization) and removed from the evaporating surface (vapour removal).Water
evaporates from a variety of surfaces, such as lakes, rivers, pavements, soils and wet
vegetation.
Where the evaporating surface is the soil surface, the degree of shading of the crop
canopy and the amount of of water available at the evaporating surface are other factors that
affect the evaporation process. Frequent rains, irrigation and water transported upwards in a
soil from a shallow water table wet the soil surface. Where the soil is able to supply water
fast enough to satsfy the evaporation demand, the evaporation from the soil is determined
only by the meterological conditions.
1.1.2 Transpiraton
Transpiration consists of the vaporization of liquid water contained in plant tissue and
the vapour removal to the atomsphere. Crops predominately lose their water through
stomata.These are small openings on the plant leaf through which gases and water vapour
pass (Figure 1.1). The water, together with some nutrients, is tsken up by the roots and
transported through the plant. The
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, KLS GIT BELAGAVIPage 14

vaporization occurs within the leaf,namely in the intercellurar spaces, and the vapour
exchange with the atmosphere is controlled by the stomatal aperture. Nearly all water taken
up is lost by transpiration and only a tiny fraction is used within the plant.
Figure1.1Schematic representation of stoma

(Source:FAO56,1990)
Transpiration, like direct evaporation, depends on the energy supply, vapour pressure
gradient and wind. Hence, radiation, air temperature, air humidity and wind terms should be
considered when assessing transpiration. The soil water content and the ability of the soil to
conduct water to the roots also determine the transpiration rate, as do water logging and soil
water salinity. The transpiration rate is also influenced by crop characteristics, environmental
aspects and cultivation practices.
1.1.3 Evapotranspiration (ET)

Evaporation and transpiration occur simultaneously and there is no easy way of
distinguishing between the two processes. Apart from the water availability in the topsoil,the
evaporation from a cropped soil is mainly determined by the fraction of the solar radiation
reaching the soil surface. This fraction decreases

over the growing period as the crop develops and the crop canopy shades more and more of
the ground area. When the crop is small, water is predominately lost by soil evaporation, but
once the crop is well developed and completely covers the soil, transpiration becomes the
main process. In Figure 1.2 the partitioning of evapotranspiration into evaporation and
transpiration is plotted in correspondence to leaf area per unit surface of soil below it. At
sowing nearly 100% of ET comes from evaporation, while at full crop cover more than 90%
of ET comes from transpiration.
Figure 1.2 The schematic diagram of partitioning of evapotranspiration into

evaporation and transpiration over the growing period for an annual field crop.
Source:FAO 56,1990)
1.1.4 Units
The evapotranspiration rate is normally expressed in millimetres (mm) per unit time. The
expresses the amount of water lost from a cropped surface in units of water depth. The time
unit can be an hour, day,decade, month or even an entire growing period or year.
Water depths can also be expressed in terms of energy received per unit area. The energy
refers to the energy or heat required to vaporize free water. This energy, known as the latent
heat of vaporization (λ),is a function of the water

temperature. For example,at 20o C,λ is about 2.45 MJ kg-1.In other words,2.45MJ are needed
to vaporize 1kg or 0.001 m3 of water. Hence,an energy input of 2.45MJ per m2 is able to
vaporize 0.001 m or 1 mm of water,and therefore 1 mm of water is equivalent to 2.45MJ m-
.The evapotranspiration rate expressed in units of MJ m-2 day-1 is represented by λET,the
2
latent heat flux.
1.2 Factors Affecting Evapotranspiration

Weather parameter,crop characteristics,managements and environmental aspects are
factors affecting evaporation and transpiration. The related ET concepts presented in Figure
1.3 are discussed in the section on evapotranspiration concepts.
Fig 1.3 Factors affecting evapotranspiration with reference to related ET concepts

(Source:FAO 56,1990)
1.2.1 Weather parameters

The principal weather parameter affecting evapotranspiration are radition,air
temperature,humidity and wind speed.Several procedures have been developed to assess the
evaporation rate from these parameters. The evaporation power of the atmosphere is

expressed by the reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). The reference crop

evapotranspiration represents the evapotranspiration from a standardized vegetated surface.
1.2.2 Crop Factors

The crop type,variety and development stage should be considered when assessing the
evapotranspiration from crops grown in large .well-managed fields.Differences in resistance
in transpitration.crop height ,crop roughness,reflection,ground cover under identical
environmental conditions.Crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETo) refers to
the evaporating demand from crops that are grown in large fields under optimum soil
water,excellent management and environmental conditions,and achieve full production under
the given climatic conditions.
1.2.3 Management And Environmental Conditions

Factors such as soil salinity,poor land fertility,limited application of fertilizers,the
presence of hard or impenetrable soil horizons,the absence of control of diseases and pests
and poor soil management may limit the crop development and reduce the
evapotranspiration. Other factors to be considered when assessing ET are ground cover,plant
density and the soil water content. The affect of soil water content on ET is consitioned
primarily by the magnitude of the water deficit and the type of soil.On the other hand,too
much water will result in water logging which might damage the root and limit root water
uptake inhibiting respiration.
1.3 Evapotranspiration Concepts

Distinctions are made (Figure1.4) between reference crop evapotranspiration(ETo),crop
evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc) and crop evapotranspiration under non
standard conditions (ETc adj). ETo is a climatic parameter expressing the evaporation power of
the atmosphere. ETc refers to the evapotranspiration from excellently managed,large,well
watered fields that achieve full production under the given climatic conditions. Due to
suboptimal crop management and environmental constraints that affect crop growth and limit
evapotranspiration,ETc under non-standard conditions generally requires a correction.
Fig.1.4 Reference evapotranspirtion (ET0),crop evapotranspiration(ETc) under

standard and non- standard conditions (ETc adj
(source:FAO 56,1990)

1.3.1 Reference crop evapotranspiration(ETo)

The evapotranspiration rate from a reference surface,not short of water,is called reference
crop evapotrnspiration or reference evapotranspiration and is denoted by ETo.The reference is
a hyphothetical grass reference crop with specific characteristic.The use of other
denominations such as potential ET is stongly dicouraged due to ambiguities in their
definations.
The concept of the reference evapotranspiration was introduced to study the evaporative
demand of the atmosphere independently of crop type,crop development and management
practices.As water abundantly vailable at the reference evapotranspiring surface,soil factors
do not affect ET.Relating ET to a specific surface provides a reference to which ET from
other surfaces can be related.It obviates the need to define separate ET level for each crop
and stage of growth.ETo values measured are calculated at different locations or in different
seasons are comparable as they refer to the ET from the same reference surface.
The only factors affecting ETo are climatic parameters.consequently,ETo is a climatic

parameter and can be computed from weather data. ETo expresses the evaporating power of
the atmophere at a specific location and time of the year and does not consider the crop
characterstic and soil factors.The FAO Penman-Monteith method is recommended as the
sole method for determining ETo. The method has been selected because it closely
approximates grass ETo at the location evaluted, is physically based,and explicitly
incorporates both physiological and aero dynamic parameters.
Typhical ranges for ETo values for different agro climatic regions are given in Table
1.1.These valuse are intended to familiarize inexperienced users with typical ranges,and are
not intended for direct application.

TABLE 1.1 Average ETo for different agroclimatic regions in mm/day
Regions Mean daily temperature (oC)

Cool Moderate Warm
~10oC 20oC >30oC
Tropics and subtropics -
2-3 3-5 5-7
humid and sub-humid -
2-4 4-6 6-8
arid and semi-arid
Temperature region -
1-2 2-4 4-7
humid and sub-humid -
1-3 4-7 6-9
arid and semi-arid
(Source : FAO 56,1990)
1.3.2 Crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions(ETc)
The crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions,denoted as ETc,is the

evapotranspiration from disease free,well-fertilized crops,grown in large fields,under
optimum soil water conditions,and achieving full production under the given climatic
conditions.
The amount of water required to compensate the evapotranspiration loss from the cropped
field is defined as crop water requirement.Although the values for crop evapotranspiration
and crop water requirement are identical,crop water requirement refers to the amount of
water that needs to be supplied,while crop evapotranspiration refers to the amount of water
that is lost through evapotranspiration.The irrigation water requirement basically represents
the difference between the crop water requirement and effective precipitation.The irrigation
water requirement also includes additional water for leaching of salts and to compensate for
non-uniformity of water application.
Crop evapotranspiration can be calculated from climatic data and by integrating directly the
crop resistance,albedo and air resistance factors in the Penman-Monteith approach. As there
is still a considrable lack of information for different crops, the Penman-Monteith method is
used for the estimation of the standard reference crop to determine its evapotranspiration

rate,i.e,ETo.Experimentally determined ratios of ETc/ETo,called crop coeffcients(Kc),are used

to relate ETc to ETo or ETc = Kc ETo.
1.3.3 Crop evapotranspiration under non standard conditions (ETc adj)

The crop evapotranspiration under non-standard conditions (ETc ) is the
adj
evapotranspiration from crops grown under management and environmental conditions that
differ from the standard conditions.when cultivating crops in fields,the real crop
evapotranspiration may deviate from ETc due to non-optimal conditions such as the presence
of pests and diseases,soil salinity, low soil fertility,water shoratge or water logging. This may
result in scanty plant growth,low plant density and may reduce the evapotranspiration rate
below ETc.
The crop evapotranspiration under non-standard conditions is calculated by using a water

stress coefficiant Ks and/or by adjusting Kc for all kinds of other stresses and environmrntal
constraints on crop evapotranspiration.
1.4 Determinig Evapotranspiration
1.4.1 ET measuement
Evapotranspiration is not easy to measure.Specific devices and accurate measurements of
various physical parameters or the soil water balance in lysimeters are required to determine
evapotranspiration.The methods are often expensive,demanding in terms of accuracy of
measurement and can only be fully exploited by well-trained research personnel.Although
the methods are inappropriate for routine measurements,they remain imporatnt for the
evaluation of ET estimates obtained by more indirect methods.
1.4.2 ET Computed From Meterological Data
Owing to the difficulty of obtaining accurate field measurement,ET is commonly

computed from weather data. A large number of empirical or semi-empirical equations have
been developed for assessing crop or reference crop evapotranspiration from meterological
data.some of the methods are only valid under specific climatic and agronomic conditions

and cannot be applied under conditions different from those under which they were originally
developed.
Numerous researchers have analysed the performance of the various calcualtion methods
for different locations. As a result of an Experts Consultation hels in May-1990,the FAO
Penmann-Monteith method is now recommended as the standard method for the definition
and computation of the reference evapotranspiration,ETo. The ET from crop surfaces under
standard conditions is determined by crop coefficients (Kc) that relate ETc to ETo. The ET
from crop surfaces under non-standard conditions is adjusted by a water stress coefficient
(Ks)and/or by modifying the crop coefficient.
1.5 Scope of the study

Estimation of evapotranspiration is one of the major hydrological components and it is
very imporatnt for determining crop water requirement, scheduling irrigation at regional
level,besides water budjet is becoming indispensable for calculation reliable recharge and
evapotranspiration rate for the ground water flow analysis.Therefore,reliable and consistent
estimate of evapotranspiration is of great importance for the efficient management of water
resources.
The performance and accuracy of FAO-PM method can never be debated in theoretical or
practical applications, yet the comparative evaluation performed in this project can be used as
guideline for selection of alternative or less data dependent methods in case of non-
availability of data. It facilitate the researchers, water managers or decision makers in
selecting the best suitable method in case of less data availability (less parameters).
1.6 Objectives of the present study

 To estimate reference evapotranspiration (ETo) by using standard FAO Penman-
Monteith method, Hargreaves Method, Thornthwaite Method, Turc Method and
Pristly-Taylor method.
 TO collect the Kc values from literature on similar hydroclimatological areas for
respective vegetative covers for different land use/land cover.

 Using Kc values,to estimate crop evapotranspiration (ETc) by FAO Penman-

Monteith method, Hargreaves Method, Thornthwaite Method, Turc Method and
Pristly-Taylor method.
 By performing Regression analysis and Statistical Error analysis and comparing
the results and finding best method among Hargreaves Method, Thornthwaite
Method, Turc Method and Pristly-Taylor method.
1.7 Orgnization of the report
This report consists of six chapters.
Chapter 1 explains the concepts of and difference between reference crop

evapotranspiration (ET0) and crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc) and
various management and environmental conditions (ETc ) its factors and that affect
adj
evapotranspiration, the units, scope , objectives of the present study and the organization.
Chapter 2 gives the description of various literature work carried out on

evapotranspiration estimation, factors affectiong ET , comparison of different ET methods
of ET calculation.
Chapter 3 introduces about the need to standardize one method to compute referenec
evapotranspiration (ET0) from meterological data. The method,its derivation, the required
meterological data and the corresponding definition of the reference surface are described
along with that its discusses the source , measurement and computation of all data required
for the calculation of the reference evapotranspiration by means of the FAO Penman-
Monteith method.
Chapter 4 introduces different methods to calculate reference evapotranspiration (ET0) in

the availability of less data. The different methods are teperature based and radiation based
methods and its formulae and equations and computations of all data required for the
calculation of the reference evapotranspiration (ET0) by means of all these methods.
Chapter 5 gives the details of study area and demonstrates how the crop reference
evapotranspiration (ET0) is determined either from meterological data and the crop
coefficient approach for calculating the crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions
(ETc) by different methods and demonstrates the how the Regression analysis, Statistical
Error analysis are made.
Chapter 6 gives the results ,discussions and conclusions.

CHAPTER 2
LITREATURE REVIEW
 S.ArunaJyothy et al.(2011) stated that Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) estimation is
essential for many studies such as hydrologic water balance, irrigation system
design and management,crop yeield simulation, and water resources planning and
management. They derived average weekly crop coefficient (Kc) values for
groundnut,paddy,tobacco and sugercane crops commonly grown in Tirupati,
Nellore, Rajahmundry and Anakapalli regions of Andhra Pradesh, India respectively
and compared them with thoes computed based on the procedure recommended in
FAO 56.
 J.G. Annandale et al.(2001) stated that the most common approach for the
estimation of crop water requirements is to pair a crop factor with the evaporation
from a reference surface and developed a user-friendly computer tool to facilitate
the calculation of daily FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy) Penman-Monteith reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) and
to estimate errors that can arise if solar radiation ,wind and vapour pressure data are
not available.
 S.Irmark et al. (2002) stated that evapotranspiration pans [Class A pan ,U.S.
Weather Bureau (USWB)] are used extensively throughout the world to measure
free water evaporation and to estimate reference evapotranspiration (ET0). Two
equations developed by Frevert et al. in 1983 and Snyder in 1992 to estimate daily
Kpan values were evaluated using a 23-year climate dataset in humid location
(Gainesville,Florida).
 Rohitashw Kumar et.al (2011) stated that efficient irrigation water management
requires a good quantification of evapotranspiration. The precise estimation of water
requirement of crop is very important factor in the application of irrigation design
and scheduling. Different climatological methods are using for estimating reference
crop evapotranspiration on a daily basis.
 Lakshman Nandagiri and Gicy M. Kovoor (2005) stated that reference crop
evapotranspiration (ET0) is a key variable in procedures established for estimating
evapotranspiration rates of agricultural crops. The purpose of their study was to
evaluate difference that could arise in FAO-56 estimates if non recommended
equations are used to compute the parameters.
 Terry A.Howell and Donald A. Dusek (1995) stated that vapour-pressure-

deficit(VPD) affects evapotranspiration,water-use efficiency, and radiation-use
efficiency of crops. VPD calculation methods were evaluated for semiarid
environment in the Southern Great Plains. Air temperature and relative humidity
were measured near Bush land, Texas, during 1992 and 1993. Temperature and
relative humidity were measured,averages were recorded for each 15-min period
and daily (24-hr) maximums,minimums and averages were recorded. VPD, actual
vapour pressure and dew-point temperatures were computed and averaged for each
15-min period and day
 R. Allen (2005) shows the derivation of other parameters and the application of
Penman-Monteith Equation.
 Jerry L. Hatfield and John H. Prueger analyzed the spatial and temporal variation in
evapotranspiration for various locations.
 Hargreaves ,G .H.and Allen R.G (2003). History and evaluation of Hargreaves

evapotranspiration equation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
129(1)53-63
 Thornthwaite,C.W (1948). An approach toward a rational classification of climate.

 Suleiman, A. A. and Hoogenboom,G (2010).Comparison of Priestly-Taylor and

FAO-56 Penman-Monteith for daily reference evapotranspiration estimation in
Georgia.
 Turc L (1961) .Estimation of irrigation water requirement ,potential

evapotranspiration: A simple climatic formula evolved up to date .Annals of
Agronomy.

CHAPTER 3
DIFFERENT METHODS OF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATION
3.1 FAO PENMAN-MONTEITH METHOD

This introduces about the need to standardize one method to compute reference
evapotranspiration (ETo) from meteorological data. The FAO Penman-Monteith method is
recommended as the sole ETo method for determining reference evapotranspiration. The
method, its derivation, the required meteorological data and the corresponding definition of
the reference surface are described along with that it discusses the source, measurement
and computation of all data required for the calculation of the reference evapotranspiration
by means of the FAO Penman-Monteith method.
3.1.1Reference ETo
A large number of more or less empirical methods have been developed over the last
50 years by numerous scientists and specialists worldwide to estimate
evapotranspiration from different climatic variables. Relationships were often subject
to rigorous local calibrations and proved to have limited global validity. Testing the
accuracy of the methods under a new set of conditions is laborious, time-consuming
and costly, and yet evapotranspiration data are frequently needed at short notice for
project planning or irrigation scheduling design.
3.1.2 Formulation of the Penman-Monteith Equation

3.1.2.1 Penman-Monteith equation
In 1948, Penman combined the energy balance with the mass transfer method and
derived an equation to compute the evaporation from an open water surface from
standard climatological records of sunshine, temperature, humidity and wind speed.
This so-called combination method was further developed by many researchers and
extended to cropped surfaces by introducing resistance factors. The resistance
nomenclature distinguishes between aerodynamic resistance and surface resistance

factors. The surface resistance parameters are often combined into one parameter,
the "bulk' surface resistance parameter which operates in series with the
aerodynamic resistance. The surface resistance, I, describes the resistance of vapor
flow through stomata openings, total leaf area and soil surface. The aerodynamic
resistance, Ta describes the resistance from the vegetation upward and involves
friction from air flowing over vegetative surfaces. Although the exchange process in
a vegetation layer is too complex to be fully described by the two resistance factors,
good correlations can be obtained between measured and calculated
evapotranspiration rates, especially for a uniform grass reference surface.
The Penman-Monteith form of the combination equation is:
(3.1)
Where Rn is the net radiation, G is the soil heat flux, (es-ea) represents the vapour
pressure deficit of the air a is the mean air density at constant pressure, cp is the
specific heat of the air, ∆ represents the slope of the saturation vapour pressure
temperature relationship, ϒ is the psychometric constant and rs and ra are the (bulk)
surface and aerodynamic resistances.
3.1.2.2 Aerodynamic resistance (ra)

The transfer of heat and water vapour from the evaporating surface into the air
above the canopy is determined by the aerodynamic resistance:
ra = (3.2)
Where,
ra aerodynamic resistance[s m-1]
zm height of wind measurements [m]
zh height of humidity measurements [m]
d zero plan displacement height [m]
zom roughness length governing momentum transfer [m]z

zoh roughness length governing transfer of heat and vapour [m]
k von Karman’s constant,0.4 [-]
uz wind speed at height z [m s-1]
The equation is restricted for normal stability conditions, I.e., where
temperature, atmospheric pressure and wind velocity distributions follow
nearly adiabatic conditions (no heat exchange)
.
3.1.2.3 (Bulk) surface resistance (rs)
The 'bulk' surface resistance describes the resistance of vapour flow through the
transpiring crop and evaporating soil surface. Where the vegetation does not
completely cover the soil, the resistance factor should indeed include the effects of
the evaporation from the soil surface. If the crop is not transpiring at a potential rate,
the resistance depends also on the water status of the vegetation. An acceptable
approximation to a much more complex relation of the surface resistance of dense
full cover vegetation is:
(3.3)
Where,
rs bulk surface resistance [sm-1]
r1 bulk stomatal resistance of the well-illuminated leaf [sm-1]
LAIactive active (sunlit) leaf area index [m2 (leaf area) m-2(soil surface)
3.1.2.4 Reference Surface

To obviate the need to define unique evaporation parameters for each crop and
stage of growth, the concept of a reference surface was introduced.
Evapotranspiration rates of the various crops are related to the evapotranspiration
rate from the reference surface (ET0) by means of crop coefficients.
To avoid problems of local calibration which would require demanding and

expensive studies, a hypothetical grass reference has been selected. Difficulties with
a living grass reference result from the fact that the grass variety and morphology
can significantly affect the evapotranspiration rate, especially during peak water use.
The FAO Expert Consultation on Revision of FAO Methodologies for Crop Water
Requirements accepted the following unambiguous definition for the reference
surface:
"A hypothetical reference crop with an assumed crop height of 0.12 m, a fixed
surface resistance of 70 s m" and an albedo of 0.23."
The reference surface closely resembles an extensive surface of green grass of uniform
height, actively growing, completely shading the ground and with adequate water. The
requirements that the grass surface should be extensive and uniform result from the
assumption that all fluxes are one-dimensional upwards. The FAO Penman-Monteith
method is selected as the method by which the evapotranspiration of this reference
surface (ET0) can be unambiguously determined, and as the method which provides
consistent ETo values in all regions and climates.
3.1.3 FAO Penman-Monteith Equation

A consultation of experts and researchers was organized by FAO in May 1990, in
collaboration with the International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage and
with the World Meteorological Organization, to review the FAO methodologies on
crop water requirements and to advise on the revision and update of procedures.
The panel of experts recommended the adoption of the Penman-Monteith

combination method as a new standard for reference evapotranspiration and
advised on procedures for calculation of the various parameters. By defining the
reference crop as a hypothetical crop with an assumed height of 0.12 m having a
surface resistance of 70 s m and an albedo of 0.23, closely resembling the
evaporation of an extension surface of green grass of uniform height, actively
growing and adequately watered, the FAO Penman-Monteith method was

developed.
From the original Penman-Monteith equation (Equation 3.1) and the equations of
the aerodynamic (Equation 3.2) and surface resistance (Equation 3.3), the FAO
Penman-Monteith method to estimate ETo can be given as:
where,
ETo reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1],
Rn net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1],
G soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1],

T daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C],
u2 wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1],
es saturation vapour pressure [KPa],
ea actual vapour pressure [KPa],
es - ea saturation vapour pressure deficit [KPa],
D slope vapour pressure curve [KPa °C-1],
 Psychometric constant [KPa °C-1].
The reference evapotranspiration, ETo, provides a standard to which:

 evapotranspiration at different periods of the year or in other regions can be
compared;
 evapotranspiration of other crops can be related.
The equation uses standard climatological records of solar radiation

(sunshine), air temperature, humidity and wind speed.
The FAO Penman-Monteith equation is a close, simple representation of the

physical and physiological factors governing the evapotranspiration process. By
using the FAO Penman- Monteith definition for ET0, one may calculate crop

coefficients at research sites by relating the measured crop evapotranspiration (ETC)

with the calculated ET0. i.e. Kc=ETc/ET0.
3.1.4 Meteorological Data
The methods for calculating evapotranspiration from meteorological data require
various climatological and physical parameters. Some of the data are measured
directly in weather stations. Other parameters are related to commonly measured
data and can be derived with the help of a direct or empirical relationship.
3.1.4.1 Meteorological Factors Determining ET

The meteorological factors determining evapotranspiration are weather parameters
which provide energy for vaporization and remove water vapour from the
evaporating surface. The principal weather parameters to consider are presented
below.
3.1.4.2 Solar radiation

The evapotranspiration process is determined by the amount of energy available
to vaporize water. Solar radiation is the largest energy source and is able to
change large quantities of liquid water into water vapour. The potential amount of
radiation that can reach the evaporating surface is determined by its location and
time of the year.
3.1.4.3 Air temperature

The solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and the heat emitted by the earth
increase the air temperature. The sensible heat of the surrounding air transfers energy
to the crop and the exerts as such a controlling influence on the rate of
evapotranspiration. In sunny, warm weather the loss of water by evapotranspiration
is greater than in cloudy and cool weather.
3.1.4.4Air humidity
While the energy supply from the sun and surrounding air is the main driving force

for the vaporization of water, the difference between the water vapour pressure at the
evapotranspiring surface and the surrounding air is the determining factor for the
vapour removal. In humid tropical regions, notwithstanding the high energy input,
the high humidity of the air will reduce the evapotranspiration demand. In such an
environment, the air is already close to saturation, so that less additional water can
be stored and hence the evapotranspiration rate is lower than in arid regions.
3.1.4.5 Wind speed
The process of vapour removal depends to a large extent on wind and air turbulence
which transfers large quantities of air over the evaporating surface. When
vaporizing water, the air above the evaporating surface becomes gradually saturated
with water vapour. If this air is not continuously replaced with drier air, the driving
force for water vapour removal and the evapotranspiration rate decreases.
3.1.5 Atmospheric Parameters
Several relationships are available to express climatic parameters. The effect of the
principal weather parameters on evapotranspiration can be assessed with the help
of these equations.
3.1.5.1 Atmospheric pressure (P)
The atmospheric pressure, P, is the pressure exerted by the weight of the earth's
atmosphere. Evaporation at high altitudes is promoted due to low atmospheric
pressure as expressed in the psychometric constant. The effect is, however, small
and in the calculation procedures, the average value for a location is sufficient. A
simplification of the ideal gas law, assuming 20°C for a standard atmosphere, can
be employed to calculate P:
(3.5)
Where, P atmospheric pressure [K Pa]; z elevation above sea level[m]

3.1.5.2 Latent heat of vaporization
The latent heat of vaporization, expresses the energy required to change a unit mass of
water from liquid to water vapour in a constant pressure and constant temperature process.
The value of the latent heat varies as a function of temperature. At a high temperature, less
energy will be required than at lower temperatures. As latent heat varies only slightly over
normal temperature ranges a single value of 2.45 MJ kg-1 is taken in the simplification of
the FAO Penman-Monteith equation. This is the latent heat for an air temperature of about
20°C.
3.1.5.2 Psychometric constant (ϒ)
The psychometric constant, ϒ is given by:
(3.6)
Where,
ϒ psychometric constant [K Pa 0C-1]
P atmospheric pressure [K Pa]
λ latent heat of vaporization,2.45 [MJ kg-1]
cp specific heat of constant pressure, 1.01310-3 [MJ kg-1 0C-1]
є ratio molecular weight of water vapour/dry air =0.622.
The specific heat at constant pressure is the amount of energy required to increase
the temperature of a unit mass of air by one degree at constant pressure. Its value
depends on the composition of the air, i.e. on its humidity. For average atmospheric
conditions a value cp = 1.01310-3 MJ kg-1 0C-1 can be used.
3.1.6 Air Temperature

Agro meteorology is concerned with the air temperature near the level of the crop canopy.
Air temperature is measured with thermometers, thermostats or thermocouples. Minimum
and maximum thermometers record the minimum air temperature over 24- hour period.
Thermographs plot the instantaneous temperature over a day or week. Electronic
weather stations often sample air temperature each minute and report hourly
averages in addition to 24-hour maximum and minimum values.

(3.7)
The temperature is given in degrees Celsius (0C-1) or Fahrenheit (0F).
3.1.7 Air Humidity
The water content of the air can be expressed in several ways. In agro meteorology,
vapour pressure, dew point temperature and relative humidity are common
expressions to indicate air humidity.
3.1.7.1 Vapour pressure
Water vapour is a gas and its pressure contributes to the total atmospheric pressure.
The amount of water in the air is related directly to the partial pressure exerted by
the water vapour in the air and is therefore a direct measure of the air water
content. In standard S.I. units, pressure is no longer expressed in centimeter of
water, millimeter of mercury, bars, sphere, etc., but in Pascal’s (Pa).
When air is enclosed above an evaporating water surface, an equilibrium is reached

between the water molecules escaping and returning to the water reservoir. At that
moment, the air is said to be saturated since it cannot store any extra water
molecules. The corresponding pressure is called the saturation vapour pressure
(e'(T)). The number of water molecules that can be stored in the air depends on the
temperature (T).
3.1.7.2 Dew point temperature
The dew point temperature is the temperature to which the air needs to be cooled to
make the air saturated. The actual vapour pressure of the air is the saturation vapour
pressure at the dew point temperature. The drier the air, the larger the difference
between the air temperature and dew point temperature.

3.1.7.3 Relative humidity
The relative humidity (RH) express the degrees of saturation of the air as a ratio of the actual
(ea) to the saturation (e0(T)) vapour pressure at the same temperature(T):
(3.8)
Relative humidity is the ratio between the amount of water the ambient air actually
holds and the amount it could hold at the same temperature. It is dimensionless and is
commonly given as a percentage.
3.1.8 Calculation procedure for air humidity
3.1.8.1 Mean saturation vapour pressure (es)

As saturation vapour pressure is related to air temperature, it can be calculated
from the air temperature. The relationship is expressed by:
(3.9)
Where e0(T) saturation vapour pressure at the air temperature T [K Pa]
exp[..] 2.7183 (base of the natural logarithm) raised to the power[..]
Due to the non-linearity of the above equation, the mean saturation vapour
pressure for a day, week, decade or month should be computed as the mean
between the saturation vapour pressure at the mean daily maximum and minimum
air temperatures for that period:
(3.10)
Using mean air temperature instead of daily minimum and maximum

temperatures results in lower estimates for the mean saturation vapour pressure.
The corresponding vapour pressure deficit (a parameter expressing the evaporating
power of the atmosphere) will also be smaller and the result will be some
underestimation of the reference crop evapotranspiration. Therefore, the mean

saturation vapour pressure should be calculated as the mean between the saturation
vapour pressure at both the daily maximum and minimum air temperature.
3.1.8.2 Slope of saturation vapour pressure curve (∆)

For the calculation of evapotranspiration, the slope of the relationship between
saturation vapour pressure and temperature is required.
(3.11)
Where, ∆ slope of saturation vapour pressure curve at air temperature T [K Pa 0C-1]
exp[..] 2.7183 (base of the natural logarithm) raised to the power[..]
In FAO Penman-Monteith equation, where occurs in numerator and

denominator, the slope of the vapour pressure curve is calculated using mean air
temperature (Equation 3.7).
3.1.8.3 Actual vapour (ea) derived from relative humidity data

The actual vapour pressure can also be calculated from the relative humidity.
For RHmean:
In the absence of RHmax and RHmin, this equation can be used to estimate ea:
(3.12)
Where RHmean is the mean relative humidity, defined as the average between RHmax
and RHmin.
3.1.8.4 Vapour pressure deficit (es-ea)
The vapour pressure deficit is the difference between the saturation (es) and
actual vapour pressure (ea) for a given time period. For time periods such as a
week, ten days or a month es is computed from equation 3.8 using the Tmax and Tmin
averaged over the time period and similarly the ea is computed with equation 3.12,
using average measurements over the period.

3.1.9 Calculation procedures for radiation
3.1.9.1 Extraterrestrial radiation (Ra)

The extraterrestrial radiation (Ra) value is calculated by selecting a value in
mm/day from Table 10 for given month and latitude of FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No.24, as there were no sufficient data available for the equation
suggested by FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.56.
3.1.9.2 Solar radiation (Rs)

If the solar radiation, Rs is not measured, it can be calculated with Angstrom
formula, which relates solar radiation to extraterrestrial radiation and relative
sunshine duration:
(3.14)
Where Rs solar or shortwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1],
n actual duration of sunshine [hour]
N maximum possible duration of sunshine or daylight hours [hour],
n/N relative sunshine duration[-],
Ra extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m-2 day-1],
as regression constant , expressing the fraction of extraterrestrial

radiation reaching the earth on overcast days (n=0)
as+bs fraction of extraterrestrial radiation reaching the earth on overcast

days (n=N)
Rs is expressed in the above equation in MJ m-2 day-1. The corresponding

equivalent evaporation in mm day-1 is obtained by multiplying Rs by 0.408
(Equation 3.13). Depending on atmospheric conditions (humidity, dust) and solar
declination (latitude and month), the Angstrom values as and bs will vary. Where no
actual solar radiation data are available and no calibration has been carried out for
improved as and bs parameters, the values as=0.25 and bs= 0.50 are recommended.

3.1.9.3 Clear-sky solar radiation (Rso)

The calculation of the clear-sky radiation, Rso when n=N is required for
computing net longwave radiation.
For near sea level or when calibrated values for as and bs are available:
(3.15)
Where Rso clear-sky solar radiation [MJ m-2 day-1]
as+bs fraction of extraterrestrial radiation reaching the earth on clear-sky

days (n=N).
3.1.9.4 Net solar or net shortwave radiation (Rns)

The net shortwave radiation resulting from the balance between incoming and
reflected solar radiation is given by:
(3.16)
Where Rns net solar or shortwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1],
α albedo or canopy reflection coefficient, which is 0.23 for the

hypothetical
grass reference crop [-]
Rs the incoming solar radiation [MJ m-2 day-1].
3.1.9.5 Net longwave radiation (Rnl)

The rate of longwave energy emission is proportional to the absolute
temperature of the surface raised to the fourth power. This relation is expressed
quantitatively by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. As humidity and cloudiness play an
important role, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is corrected by these two factors when
estimating the net outgoing flux of longwave radiation. It is thereby assumed that
the concentrations of the other absorbers are constant:
(3.17)

Where Rnl net outgoing longwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1],

Stefan-Boltzmann constant [4.903*10-9 MJ K-4 m-2 day-1],
Tmax ,K maximum absolute temperature during the 24-hour period [K=
0
C+273.16],
Tmin ,K minimum absolute temperature during the 24-hour period [K=
0
C+273.16],
ea actual vapour pressure [K Pa],
Rs/Rso relative shortwave radiation (limited to 1.0),
Rs measured or calculated (Equation 3.140 solar radiation [MJ m-2
day-1],
Rso calculated (Equation 3.15) clear-sky radiation [MJ m-2 day-1].
An average of the maximum air temperature to the fourth power and the
minimum air temperature to the fourth power is commonly used in the Stefan-
Boltzmann equation for 24-hour time steps. The term (0.34-0.14 ea) expresses the
correction of air humidity, and will be smaller if the humidity increases. The
effect of cloudiness is expressed by (1.35 Rs/Rso-0.35). The term becomes smaller
if the cloudiness increase increases and hence Rs decreases. The smaller the
correction terms, the smaller the net outgoing flux of longwave radiation. Note
that Rs/Rso term in Equation 3.17 must be limited to that 1.0.
3.1.9.6 Net radiation (Rn)
The net radiation (Rn) is the difference between the incoming net shortwave
radiation (Rns) and the outgoing net longwave radiation (Rnl):
(3.18)
3.1.9.7 Soil heat flux (G)

For day and ten-day periods:
As the magnitude of the day or ten-day soil heat flux beneath the grass

reference surface is relatively small, it may be ignored and thus:

Gday=0
3.1.10 Wind Speed

3.1.10.1 Measurement
Wind is characterized by its direction and velocity. As wind speed at a given
location varies with time, it is necessary to express it as an average over a given
time interval. Wind speed is given in meters per second (m s-1) or kilometers per
day (Km day-1).
Wind speed is measured with anemometers. The anemometers commonly used
in weather stations are composed of cups or propellers which are turned by the
force of the wind. By counting the number of revolutions over a given time
period, the average wind speed over the measuring period is computed.
3.1.10.2 Wind profile relationship

Wind speeds measured at different heights above the soil surface are different.
Surface friction tends to slow down wind passing over it. Wind speed is slowest
at the surface and increases with height. For this reason anemometers are placed
at chosen standard height, i.e. 10 m in meteorology and 2 or 2 m in agro
meteorology. For the calculation evapotranspiration, wind speed measured at 2
m above the surface is required. To adjust wind speed data obtained from
instruments placed at elevations over than the standard height of 2 m, a
logarithmic wind speed profile may be used for measurements above a short
grassed surface:
(3.20)
Where u2 wind speed at 2 m above ground surface [m s-1],
uz measured wind speed at z m above ground surface [m s-1],
z height of the measurement above ground surface [m].

3.2 Temperature Based Methods

3.2.1 HargreavesPotential Evapotranspiration Method
Numerous methods have been proposed to estimate the PET in past decades. It can be
estimated either by using land-atmosphere energy balance aerodynamics principles or by
empirically determined methods . The FAO-56 PM, a standard version of the classic
Penman-Monteith (PM) equation recommended by Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), is the most widely used PET estimation method and is usually regarded as the best
method to provide the most accurate PET information . As a physically-based land-
atmosphere energy balance model, FAO-56 PM requires lots of input variables including air
temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed. Thus, its applicability is
often restricted by the availability of the climate variables in real-world applications.
Therefore, the empirical methods, such as Hargreaves (HS) method , Thornthwaite (TH)
method , Priestley-Taylor equation , Blaney-Criddle method , Jensen–Haise , and Hamon
method , are widely adopted as PET estimators since they only need a few widely available
climate variables such as air temperature. Considering the reliability and availability of the
climate variables, empirical methods, especially the temperature-based ones, may be better
options in scenarios such as PET estimation in data-lacked areas and future PET projection.
Among temperature-based PET estimation methods, the Hargreaves-Samani method (HS)

and TH method are two widely used approaches, especially in the research fields of
hydrological, agricultural, and ecological models. Compared with the classic TH method, HS
method requires the daily minimum and maximum air temperatures as input data rather than
just adopting mean air temperature by the TH model. Therefore, HS model not only gets the
atmospheric mean status through the mean air temperature, but also partly captures the land
surface property information, such as soil moisture and land surface albedo by introducing
diurnal temperature range . From this aspect, HS is more reasonable than TH method.
Moreover, enhancement of the atmospheric evaporative demand has taken place under the

scenario of global warming . Therefore, the PET method must have the ability to capture the
global warming information in the hydrological projection applications. Compared with the
TH model, the character of asymmetric warming rate for the daily maximum/minimum
temperature can be reflected by the HS model. Thus, HS is more applicable than TH in PET
estimation under climate change scenario. Therefore, HS method has been widely evaluated
and applied across different climate regions .
Though the above-mentioned analyses show that the HS methods are more suitable for PET
estimation than TH, the compatibility and applicability of the HS method in hydrological
model should be further verified by validating the model simulation performance in
applications. Some previous literatures have involved in the comparison of applicability of
different PET estimation methods in hydrological simulation, concerning PM, HS, TH, and
other methods . However, until recently, they have not yet reached a consensus with regard
to the relationship between the hydrological model performance and the PET estimation
method. For example, several researchers reported that hydrological models appear to be
insensitive to different PET inputs in term of streamflow simulation. While other results
showed that the accuracy of the streamflow simulation is significantly impacted by different
PET inputs . It should be noticed that the conflicting conclusions are possibly caused by the
adoption of different hydrological models. For example, based on four conceptual
rainfall–runoff. Therefore, as to the specific hydrological model, the applicability of the HS
method should be further verified by driving the specific hydrological model and comparing
the streamflow simulation accuracy.
3.2.1.1 Hargreaves Method Equation

Hargreaves method, proposed by Hargreaves , is also named Hargreaves-Samani (HS)
equation method. The HS method is the most commonly used temperature-based method and
is recommended by FAO as an alternative method for PET estimation when observed
weather data are unavailable [5]. The HS method estimate PET as follows:
ET0 = (3.21)

where ET0 is daily PET in mm day−1; Ra is extraterrestrial radiation in mm day−1; Tmax and Tmin
are daily maximum and minimum air temperature in ◦C, respectively.
3.2.2 Thornhwaite Method

Understanding and estimating the earth’s hydrologic cycle is important to water resource
planners and managers. Evapotranspiration is one of the most difficult components of the
hydrologic cycle to estimate. Thornthwaite and Mather (1955) developed a detailed method
to estimate evapotranspiration. Although this method for computing potential and actual
evapotranspiration is highly accepted and widely used, it is unfeasible to perform these
calculations with large data sets. The computer program developed in this report allows the
calculation of these parameters to be accomplished in a more efficient and timely manner.
Potential evapotranspiration (PET), as described by Penman (1948), is “the amount of water

transpired in a unit time by a short green crop completely shading the ground, of uniform
height, and never short of water.” This definition allows maximum evapotranspiration,
which is only limited by the energy source (thermal energy) that is applied to the evaporative
surface. Initially, evaporation from a wet soil is limited by the energy source, however, with
time, this process is limited by the decreased rates of water flow to the active evaporative
surface. Since the process of evaporation and transpiration in most watersheds is controlled
by water flow through unsaturated soils (Brooks et al., 1990), potential evapotranspiration
estimates may not represent true evapotranspiration values.
3.2.2.1 Thornthwaite Method Equation

Thornthwaite and Mather’s PET is based solely on air temperature. PET estimates are based
upon a 12-hour day (amount of daylight) and a 30-day month.
ET0 = (3.22)
K= Months (Jan, Feb…Dec)
Where ET0 is Potential evapotranspiration ,Nk is the maximum possible duration of sunshine
in the Kth month (hours) and Tk is the mean air temperature in the Kth month

Therefore, for months where the supply of thermal energy can evaporate all of the available
precipitation, actual evaporation consists of a combination of the available precipitation and
the amount of water taken from soil moisture storage.
3.3 Radiation Based Method

3.3.1 Turc Method of Evapotranspiration
Water scarcity is increasingly becoming the most important environmental constraint
limiting plant growth in many semi-arid regions. Therefore knowledge of
evapotranspiration, which involves the evaporation of water from land surfaces and
transpiration by vegetation, is essential for estimating optimal irrigation water pratices
requirements. In most cases, reference evapotranspiration (ET0) has been computed by the
Penman-Monteith equation (PM) as recommended by the FAO and applied over different
climates over the globe . Unfortunately, estimation of reference ET0 by the physically
based Penman-Monteith (PM) equation is largely limited by the availability of the input
meteorological data needed for the calculation, even if the FAO-56 provided easy lookup
tables or approximations if some measurements are not available. On the other hand, there
are also simplified PM or empirical approaches documented to estimate ET0 such as the
approach of Priestly-Taylor (Priestly and Taylor, 1972) and Makkink (Makkink, 1957),
which are both a simplification of the Penman-Monteith equation, or the empirical models
of Hargreaves (Hargreaves and Samani, 1985), Thornthwaite (Thornthwaite, 1948), or
Turc (Turc, 1961). In general, the Penman-Monteith equation as described in FAO-56 (FAO-
PM) presents two main advantages over the others: 1) it is physically-based, and can
therefore be globally applied without any adjustment of input parameters, 2) it is well
documented, implemented in a wide range of software, and has been calibrated by means of
lysimeters (Droogers and Allen, 2002). That is why it is frequently cited as the preferred
method for the calculation of ET0, especially for calculations at short temporal scales
(Alexandris and Kerkides, 2003). Thus, the fair results obtained in many different studies at
daily to longer temporal scales is surprising even if the combined equation was theoretically
derived for instantaneous values of the variables involved .

However, it requires several measurements of climatic variables such as air temperature,

wind speed, relative humidity, soil heat flux, and solar radiation which are not measured at
hourly to daily basis in many stations especially in developing countries . Despite the
attempts to estimate solar radiation and humidity from other variables easier to measure, it is
difficult to obtain the required accuracy without modern electronic devices, especially those
providing wind speed and air vapor pressure values. Moreover, the lack of reliable
measurements in areas where ET0 estimates are especially needed is very common. These
shortcomings in the application of FAO-PM equation motivated the derivation of less
demanding models in terms of input data such as the Turc equation, where only limited data
are required.
Several authors have reported that the Turc equation, which was originally developed for
Mediterranean countries, tends to overestimate ET0 for humid locations (Mohammad, 1978;
Jensen et al., 1990). However, the Turc method was considered by many authors (Schoch,
1965; Cornet, 1977; Tandia, 1989; Dacosta, 1989; Gaye, 1990) as the best model to estimate
ET0 in Senegal. This model yielded also the best estimate of the reference evapotranspiration
among five others empirical methods for three stations located in eastern North Carolina,
USA (Amatya et al., 1995). Because application of the original Turc formula for several
climatic stations in Senegal showed that the calculated ET0 is high compared to reference ET0
based on the FAO-PM equation and that the mismatch between Turc and FAO-PM is
seasonal depended, leads to the assumption that the original parameters and constrains used
in the Turc formula are not valid for Senegal.
3.3.1.1 Turc Method Equation

The Turc formula (Turc, 1961) was originally developed for southern France and
northern Africa. It is based on some easily available climatic data such as radiation, air
temperature, and relative humidity, and therefore, easy to apply whenever a full set of
climatic data is not available. The Turc equation for daily potential evapotranspiration
calculation is given by Eq. :
RHmean50%
ET0 = (3.23)
RHmean 50%
ET0 = (3.24)
where ET0 is Potential evapotranspiration in mm day-1, T is the mean daily air temperature
(°C),RHmean is mean relative humidity (%) and Rs’ is solar radiation in (Cal/cm2/day) and λ is
latent heat of vaporization (MJ/Kg).
Cal/cm2/day (3.25)
Physically, this constrain means that the overall ET0 increases linearly at given temperature
and radiation with decreasing relative humidity below the threshold of 50% RH. Therefore,
the term C can be somehow related to the vapor deficit term as described in the PM equation
. On the other hand, at higher relative humidity ET0 is mainly driven by radiation and
temperature and relative humidity does not play a role anymore.
Again an approximation for the global radiation is provided if not measured directly by
knowledge of the sunshine duration Eq. :
(3.26)
where R0is the extraterrestrial radiation (MJ m-2), S sunshine duration (h), and S0is the
astronomic possible sunshine duration (h).
3.3.2 Priestley-Taylor Method

Monitoring the transfers of mass and energy at a surface is crucial for hydrological and
vegetation resources management. It is also necessary for a better comprehension and
prediction of hydrological and climatic systems. Remote sensing is an excellent tool for this
monitoring as it provides information related to mass and energy transfers, and particularly
to evapotranspiration fluxes .
Evapotranspiration is one of the fundamental processes controlling the equilibrium of our

planet. It constitutes the link between the hydrological and energetic equilibrium at the
soil–vegetation– atmosphere interface and its knowledge is crucial for climatic and
agrometeorological studies.

Furthermore, the estimation of actual evapotranspiration, using visible and infrared satellite
remote sensing data, has been at the centre of several methodological approaches during the
last years . The deterministic models based on more complex models such as Soil–
Vegetation–Atmosphere Transfer models (SVAT) are mainly used for estimating
evapotranspiration, surface energy exchanges and water balance. Most of the transfer
mechanisms (radioactive, turbulent, and water transfers) and some physiological processes
(photosynthesis, stomata regulation) are described. Their time resolution is less than one
hour, in agreement with the dynamic of atmospheric and surface processes. However, these
models are more cumbersome and use many parameters which are difficult to measure,
making them unsuitable for spatial integration in models that are very sensitive to such
parameters (Jacob 1999). From an operational point of view, we prefer using semi-empirical
algorithms that express the convective flux through simple relationships. In most cases, these
algorithms have been developed for determining instantaneous or daily evapotranspiration.
The “simplified” semi-empirical relationship has allowed expressing the daily actual
evapotranspiration based on the difference between the midday surface and air temperature
difference. The advantage of these relationships is to avoid three problems: (1) the
estimation of the roughness length (involved in the sensible heat flux), (2) the lack of
continuous measurement of surface temperature, and (3) the estimation of the soil heat flux,
which is negligible on daily timescales. However, it has limitations related to poor spatial
representativeness of air temperature, measured locally, and the difficulty of taking into
account the surface heterogeneity.
To take into account the fraction of vegetation cover in interpreting thermal infrared
measurements, proposed a so-called “Triangle” method in which they exploit the
dimensions of a triangle resulting from the correlation between vegetation indices and
surface temperature, highlighting the potential of this approach in estimating
evapotranspiration.
Another way to estimate evapotranspiration is the so-called “residual” method, in which the
latent heat flux is derived as the residual term of the energy balance equation . The

implementation of these methods often requires additional information (weather, land use,
vegetation height, etc.) at the time of satellite overpass.
The volition to use only information from remote sensing led Bastiaanssen et al. (1995) to
develop an algorithm called SEBAL (Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land) to solve
the energy balance equation with a spatial approach assuming the existence of sites under
extreme water conditions. The properties of these sites are used for determining some
variables of the soil–plant– atmosphere interface not accessible with remote sensing (wind
speed, the speed of thermal stability of the atmosphere, the resistance to turbulent transfer
and temperature air).
The overall intent of this study is to explore means for obtaining evapotranspiration maps
for irrigated areas in Algeria, where ground data are scarce and hard to collect. A remote
sensing approach is required to be routinely applied as a tool for providing both historical
and near-real time evapotranspiration and surface energy fluxes for performing a better
management of the agricultural water resources of the area. For this purpose, we used data
from Landsat ETM+ satellite to develop a methodology based on the triangle concept for
estimating evapotranspiration through the classical expression of Priestley and Taylor
(1972).
Model description
The latent heat flux which represents the energy consumed by evapotranspiration is
estimated in pixel basis from the Priestley-Taylor expression (Priestley and Taylor, 1972),
slightly modified by Flint et al. (1991):
3.3.2.1 Priestley-Taylor Equation
Equation constitutes a generalization of the Priestley-Taylor expression
ET0 = (3.27)
Where,
ET0 is daily PET in mm day−1
α is Short wave reflectance or albedo and value (0.23)

G is heat flux density to the ground (MJ/m2/day)
∆ slope
Rn Net radiation (MJ/m2/day)
CHAPTER 4
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF THE STUDY AREA
4.1 General
The present study area selected was BELAGAVI city. Due to declination of rainfall over the
years, there would be water scarcity in next 20-30years. In order to evaluate
evapotranspiration rate in this region, an attempt was made to select the best method among
the four methods when FAO Penman-Monteith method could not be used due to less data
available.
4.2 Details of the study area
The study area chosen was BELAGAVI city. The study area lies geographically between 150
52' 53.87" N latitude and 740 28' 8.02" E longitudes. It covers an area of 13,415 sq.km. It has
an average elevation of 760 m. Belgaum district is the biggest district of Karnataka. Situated

near the foothills of the Sahyadri mountain range (Western Ghats) At an altitude of about 779
m (2,556 ft), 100 km (62 mi) from the Arabian Sea.
The present study is intended to classify the land for its best suitability based on various
parameters which are derived from Survey of India (SOP) topomass, Google Earth Satellite
Imagery, meteorological data from meteorological department BELAGAVI.The Google
Earth Satellite Imagery showing study area is shown in Fig 4.1 and location map of study
area is shown in Fig 4.2
Fig 4.1 Google Earth Satellite Imagery showing study area

Fig 4.2 Location map of study area
4.2.1 Physiography
Belgaum is in the northwestern part of the state of Karnataka, in the southern region of India.
It lies near the borders of the Indian states of Maharashtra and Goa. The town is at the
foothills of the Sahyadri range (Western Ghats) at an altitude of 2500 feet (760 m) above sea
level. The weather of Belgaum is pleasant, owing to its hilly topography. Summers (April-
June) are mildly hot and winters are cool (November-February) It experiences heavy
southwestern monsoon rains during (July-September). It receives as much as 50 inches of
rain annually.
4.2.2 Geology
The area consists of soils such as shallow to very deep black soils, red loamy soils, lateritic
soils etc.
4.3 Land use

The vegetation in area is characterized by agricultural activity. Major crops grown are paddy,
maize, Jowar & sugarcane. Commercial crops grown are Oil Seeds, Groundnut and Cotton
Table 4.1 shows %area of each land use / land cover type
Total Area LU/LC Type Area % Area

Sl. NO.
(hectares) (hectares)
1 Agricultural Plantation 3275 27.53%
2 Built up Area 5519 46.41%
3 Open Area 1350 11.36%
4 11895 Settlement 245 2.06%
5 Water Bodies 119 1%
6 Roads and Railways 1387 11.64%
Total 11895 100%
4.4 Determination of ETO and ETc
The chapter demonstrates how the crop reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is determined
either from meteorological data and the crop coefficient approach for calculating the crop
evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc).
4.4.1 Reference Evapotranspiration (ETO)
The FAO penman–monteith method is maintained as the sole standard method for
computation of ETO from metallurgical data. This chapter represents guidelines to calculate
with different times steps, ranging from us two months, and with missing climatic data. The
ETo calculation can be done by hand with the help of calculation sheet, or by means of a
computer. ET0 is also calculated by other four methods they are Hargreaves method,
Thornthwaite method, Turc method and Pristly-Taylor method ,these methods can be used

when the data is insufficient for using standard FAO penman–monteith method as these
methods requires less data.
4.4.1.1 Penman-Monteith Equation
From the original Penman-Monteith equation and the equations of the aerodynamic and
surface resistance, the FAO Penman-Monteith equation has beenderived:
(4.1)
where,
ETo reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1],
Rn net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1],
G soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1],
T daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C],
u2 wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1],
es saturation vapour pressure [KPa],
ea actual vapour pressure [KPa],
es - ea saturation vapour pressure deficit [KPa],
D slope vapour pressure curve [KPa °C-1],
 Psychometric constant [KPa °C-1].
The FAO Penman-Monteith equation determines the evapotranspiration from the

hypothetical grass reference surface and provides a standard to which evapotranspiration in
different periods of the year or in other regions can be compared and to which the
evapotranspiration from other crops can be related.
4.4.1.2 Hargreaves Equation

The Hargreaves equation is the most commonly used temperature-based method and is
recommended by FAO as an alternative method for PET estimation when observed weather
data are unavailable.
ET0 = (4.2)
Where,
ET0 is daily PET in mm day−1;
Ra is extraterrestrial radiation in mm day−1;
Tmax and Tmin are daily maximum and minimum air temperature in ◦C, respectively.
4.4.1.3 Thornthwaite Equation

Thornthwaite equation is based solely on air temperature. PET estimates are based upon a
12-hour day (amount of daylight) and a 30-day month.
ET0 = (4.3)
Where,
ET0 is Potential evapotranspiration,
Nk is the maximum possible duration of sunshine in the Kth month (hours)
Tk is the mean air temperature in the Kth month
4.4.1.4 Turc Equation
The Turc formula (Turc, 1961) was originally developed for southern France and
northern Africa. It is based on some easily available climatic data such as radiation, air
temperature, and relative humidity, and therefore, easy to apply whenever a full set of
climatic data is not available.

RHmean50%
ET0 = (4.4)
RHmean 50%
ET0 = (4.5)
Where
ET0 is Potential evapotranspiration in mm day-1,
T is the mean daily air temperature (°C),
RHmean is mean relative humidity (%)
Rs’ is solar radiation in (Cal/cm2/day)
λ is latent heat of vaporization (MJ/Kg).
4.4.1.5 Pristly–Taylor Equation
It is based on some easily available climatic data such as radiation, air temperature, and
relative humidity, and therefore, easy to apply whenever a full set of climatic data is not
available.
(5.5)
Where,
ϒ Psychometric constant (K Pa/0C)
Rn Net radiation (MJ/m2/day)
α short wave reflectance or albedo and value 0.23
G Heat flux Density to the ground (MJ/m2/day)
4.4.2 Crop evapotranspiration (ETc)

The standard conditions refer to crops grown in large fields under excellent agronomic and
soil water conditions. The crop evapotranspiration differs distinctly from the reference
evapotranspiration (ETo) as the ground cover, canopy properties and aerodynamic resistance
of the crop are different from grass. The effects of characteristics that distinguish field crops

from grass are integrated into the crop coefficient (Kc). In the crop coefficient approach, crop
evapotranspiration is calculated by multiplying ETo by Kc.
4.4.3 Regressions Analysis

The regressions analysis was done to examine the performance of four methods compared
with the standard ET0 on monthly and seasonal basis. The regression equations computed is
of the form:
Y = mX+C (4.5)
Where,
Y: STANDARD METHOD ET0 [mm month-1](FAO Penman-Monteith Method)
X: standard ET0 from each of the four methods ET0 [mm month-1]
m: slope
C: intercept (assumed to be zero) =0
(4.6)
Where,
Standard deviation of X: Sx
Standard deviation of Y: Sy
Covariance of X and Y: Sxy
Correlation :R
4.4.4 Statistical Error analysis

The RMSE parameter has been used to indicate the goodness-of-fit of ET0 estimates. The
best method is the one with the lowest absolute average deviation(AAD), m value closest to
1.0, the smallest RMSE, and the highest R2.
Statistical error analysis was carried out with the parameters;
Root mean Square Error (RMSE),
Absolute Average Deviation (AAD)

Absolute Relative Error (ARE)
Equations:
(4.7)
(4.8)
(4.9)
Where,
Yi is Standard ET0 [mm month-1](FAO Penman-Monteith Method)
Xi is estimated ET0 from each of the four methods ET0 [mm month-1]
4.4.5 Calculation procedure
4.4.5.1 Direct calculation
Crop evapotranspiration can be derived from meteorological and crop data by means of the
Penman-Monteith equation, Hargreaves equation, Thornthwaite equation, Turc equation and
Pristly-Taylor equation. By adjusting the albedo and the aerodynamic and canopy surface
resistances to the growing characteristics of the specific crop, the evapotranspiration rate can
be directly estimated. The albedo and resistances are, however, difficult to estimate
accurately as they may vary continually during the growing season as climatic conditions
change, as the crop develops, and with wetness of the soil surface. The canopy resistance will
further be influenced by the soil water availability, and it increases strongly if the crop is
subjected to water stress. Then the Regressions analysis and Statistical Error analysis are

made between ET0 value of standard FAO Penman-Monteith and ET0 value of all the other
four methods, and the results are compared and better method is evaluated so that can be
used when standard FAO Penman-Monteith method could not be used due to lack of data.
4.4.5.2 Crop coefficient approach
In the crop coefficient approach the crop evapotranspiration, ETc, is calculated by

multiplying the reference crop evapotranspiration, ETo, by a crop coefficient Kc
ETc = Kc ETo (4.10)
Where,
ETc crop evapotranspiration [mm season-1],

Kc crop coefficient [dimensionless],
ETo reference crop evapotranspiration [mm month-1].
The reference ETo is defined and calculated using the FAO Penman-Monteith equation,
Hargreaves equation, Thornthwaite equation, Turc equation and Pristly-Taylor equation. The
crop coefficient, Kc, is basically the ratio of the crop ETc to the reference ETo, and it
represents an integration of the effects of four primary characteristics that distinguish the
crop from reference grass. These characteristics are:
· Crop height. The crop height influences the aerodynamic resistance term, ra, of the FAO
Penman-Monteith equation and the turbulent transfer of vapour from the crop into the
atmosphere. The ra tenu appears twice in the full form of the FAO Penman-Monteith
equation.
· Albedo (reflectance) of the crop-soil surface. The albedo is affected by the fraction of
ground covered by vegetation and by the soil surface wetness. The albedo of the crop-soil
surface influences the net radiation of the surface, Rn, which is the primary source of the
energy exchange for the evaporation process.
· Canopy resistance. The resistance of me crop to vapour transfer is affected by leaf area
(number of stomata), leaf age and condition, and the degree of stomatal control. The canopy
resistance influences the surface resistance, rs.
· Evaporation from soil, especially exposed soil.
4.4.5.3 Factors Determining the Crop coefficient
The crop coefficient integrates the effect of characteristics that distinguish a typical field crop
from the grass reference, which has a constant appearance and a complete ground cover.
Consequently, different crops will have different Kc coefficients. The changing
characteristics of the crop over the growing season also affect the Kc coefficient.
Finally, as evaporation is an integrated part of crop evapotranspiration, conditions affecting

soil evaporation will also have an effect on Kc
4.4.5.4 Crop type
Due to differences in albedo, crop height, aerodynamic properties, and leaf and stomata
properties, the evapotranspiration from full grown, well-watered crops differs from ETo. The
close spacing of plants and taller canopy height and roughness of many full grown
agricultural crops cause these crops to have Kc factors that are larger than 1. The Kc factor is
often 5-10% higher than the reference (where Kc = 1.0), and even 15-20% greater for some
tall crops such as maize, sorghum or sugar cane
4.4.5.5 Climate
The Kc values are typical values expected for average Kc under a standard climatic condition,
which is defined as a sub-humid climate with average daytime minimum relative humidity
(RHmin) » 45% and having calm to moderate wind speeds averaging 2 m/s. Variations in wind
alter the aerodynamic resistance of the crops and hence their crop coefficients, especially for
those crops that are substantially taller than the hypothetical grass reference. The effect of the
difference in aerodynamic properties between the grass reference surface and agricultural

crops is not only crop specific. It also varies with the climatic conditions and crop height.
Because aerodynamic properties are greater for many agricultural crops as compared to the
grass reference, the ratio of ETc to ETo (i.e., Kc) for many crops increases as wind speed
increases and as relative humidity decreases. More arid climates and conditions of greater
wind speed will have higher values for Kc. More humid climates and conditions of lower
wind speed will have lower values for Kc.
4.4.5.6 Soil evaporation
Differences in soil evaporation and crop transpiration between field crops and the reference
surface are integrated within the crop coefficient. The Kc coefficient for full-cover crops
primarily reflects differences in transpiration as the contribution of soil evaporation is
relatively small. After rainfall or irrigation, the effect of evaporation is predominant when the
crop is small and scarcely shades the ground. For such low-cover conditions, the
Kc coefficient is determined largely by the frequency with which the soil surface is wetted.
Where the soil is wet for most of the time from irrigation or rain, the evaporation from the
soil surface will be considerable and Kc may exceed 1. On the other hand, where the soil
surface is dry, evaporation is restricted and Kc will be small and might even drop to as low as
0.1 (Figure 4.3).

Fig 4.3 the effect of evaporation on Kc.
The horizontal line represents Kc when the soil surface is kept continuously wet. The curved
line corresponds to Kc when the soil surface is kept dry but the crop receives sufficient water
to sustain full transpiration
Differences in soil evaporation between the field crop and the reference surface can be
forecast more precisely by using a dual crop coefficient.
4.4.6 Crop growth stages
As the crop develops, the ground cover, crop height and the leaf area change. Due to
differences in evapotranspiration during the various growth stages, the Kc for a given crop
will vary over the growing period. The growing period can be divided into four distinct
growth stages: initial, crop development, mid-season and late season.
4.4.6.1 Initial stage
The initial stage runs from planting date to approximately 10% ground cover. The length of
the initial period is highly dependent on the crop, the crop variety, the planting date and the
climate. The end of the initial period is determined as the time when approximately 10% of
the ground surface is covered by green vegetation. For perennial crops, the planting date is
replaced by the 'greenup' date, i.e., the time when the initiation of new leaves occurs.
During the initial period, the leaf area is small, and evapotranspiration is predominately in the
form of soil evaporation. Therefore, the Kc during the initial period (Kc ini) is large when the
soil is wet from irrigation and rainfall and is low when the soil surface is dry. The time for
the soil surface to dry is determined by the time interval between wetting events, the
evaporation power of the atmosphere (ETo) and the importance of the wetting event.
4.4.6.2 Crop development stage
The crop development stage runs from 10% ground cover to effective full cover. Effective
full cover for many crops occurs at the initiation of flowering. For row crops where rows
commonly interlock leaves such as beans, sugar beets, potatoes and corn, effective cover can
be defined as the time when some leaves of plants in adjacent rows begin to intermingle so
that soil shading becomes nearly complete, or when plants reach nearly full size if no
intermingling occurs.
4.4.6.3 Mild-season stage
The mid-season stage runs from effective full cover to the start of maturity. The start of
maturity is often indicated by the beginning of the ageing, yellowing or senescence of leaves,
leaf drop, or the browning of fruit to the degree that the crop evapotranspiration is reduced
relative to the reference ETo. The mid-season stage is the longest stage for perennials and for
many annuals, but it may be relatively short for vegetable crops that are harvested fresh for
their green vegetation.
At the mid-season stage the Kc reaches its maximum value. The value for Kc (Kc mid) is
relatively constant for most growing and cultural conditions. Deviation of the Kc mid from
the reference value '1' is primarily due to differences in crop height and resistance between
the grass reference surface and the agricultural crop and weather conditions.

4.4.6.4 Late-season stage
The late season stage runs from the start of maturity to harvest or full senescence. The
calculation for Kc and ETc is presumed to end when the crop is harvested, dries out
naturally, reaches full senescence, or experiences leaf drop.For some perennial vegetation in
frost free climates, crops may grow year round so that the date of termination may be taken
as the same as the date of 'planting'.
The Kc value at the end of the late season stage (Kc end) reflects crop and water
management practices. The Kc end value is high if the crop is frequently irrigated until
harvested fresh. If the crop is allowed to senesce and to dry out in the field before harvest, the
Kc end value will be small. Senescence is usually associated with less efficient stomatal
conductance of leaf surfaces due to the effects of ageing, thereby causing a reduction in Kc.
4.4.7 Single crop coefficient approach (Kc)
In the single crop coefficient approach, the effect of crop transpiration and soil evaporation
are combined into a single Kc coefficient. The coefficient integrates differences in the soil
evaporation and crop transpiration rate between the crop and the grass reference surface. As
soil evaporation may fluctuate daily as a result of rainfall or irrigation, the single crop
coefficient expresses only the time-averaged (multi-day) effects of crop evapotranspiration.
As the single Kc coefficient averages soil evaporation and transpiration, the approach is used
to compute ETc for weekly or longer time periods, although calculations may proceed on a
daily time step. The time-averaged single Kc is used for planning studies and irrigation
system design where the averaged effects of soil wetting are acceptable and relevant. This is
the case for surface irrigation and set sprinkler systems where the time interval between
successive irrigation is of several days, often ten days or more. For typical irrigation
management, the time-averaged single Kc is valid.
4.4.8 Crop coefficient curve
After the selection of the calculation approach, the determination of the lengths for the crop
growth stages and the corresponding crop coefficients, a crop coefficient curve can be
constructed. The curve represents the changes in the crop coefficient over the length of the
growing season. The shape of the curve represents the changes in the vegetation and ground
cover during plant development and maturation that affect the ratio of ETc to ETo. From the
curve, the Kc factor and hence ETc can be derived for any period within the growing season.
FIG 4.4 Generalized crop coefficient curve for the single crop coefficient approach
4.4.8.1 Single crop coefficient
The generalized crop coefficient curve is shown in (Figure 4.4). Shortly after the planting of
annuals or shortly after the initiation of new leaves for perennials, the value for Kc is small,
often less than 0.4. The Kc begins to increase from the initial Kc value, Kc ini, at the
beginning of rapid plant development and reaches a maximum value, Kc mid, at the time of
maximum or near maximum plant development. During the late season period, as leaves
begin to age and senesce due to natural or cultural practices, the Kc begins to decrease until it
reaches a lower value at the end of the growing period equal to Kc end.
4.4.9 Calculation procedure for crop evapotranspiration, ETc:
The calculation procedure for crop evapotranspiration, ETc, consists of:
1. Identifying the crop growth stages, determining their lengths, and selecting the
corresponding Kc coefficients;
2. Adjusting the selected Kc coefficients for frequency of wetting or climatic conditions

during the stage;
3. Constructing the crop coefficient curve (allowing one to determine Kc values for any
period during the growing period); and
4. Calculating ETc as the product of ETo and Kc.
4.4.10 Length of Growth stages
* FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24 provides general lengths for the four distinct
growth stages and the total growing period for various types of climates and locations.
* The lengths of the initial and development periods may be relatively short for deciduous
trees and shrubs that can develop new leaves in the spring at relatively fast rates
* The rate at which vegetation cover develops and the time at which it attains effective full
cover are affected by weather conditions in general and by mean daily air temperature in
particular. Therefore, the length of time between planting and effective full cover will vary
with climate, latitude, elevation and planting date. It will also vary with cultivar (crop
variety).
* The end of the mid-season and beginning of the late season is usually marked by
senescence of leaves, often beginning with the lower leaves of plants. The length of the late
season period may be relatively short (less than 10 days) for vegetation killed by frost.
Moisture stress or other environmental stresses will usually accelerate the rate of crop
maturation and can shorten the mid and late season growing periods.
4.4.11 Crop coefficients
Changes in vegetation and ground cover mean that the crop coefficient Kc varies during the
growing period. The trends in Kc during the growing period are represented in the crop
coefficient curve. Only three values for Kc are required to describe and construct the crop

coefficient curve: those during the initial stage (Kc ini), the mid-season stage (Kc mid) and at the
end of the late season stage (Kc end ).Table 4.6 shows crop season and the crop coefficient Kc
values for different agricultural plantations grown in Belagavi area.
Table 4.2 Crop coefficient (Kc)
CROPS ↓ MA AP MA JU AU SE NO
MONTHS→ JAN FEB R R Y JUN L G P OCT V DEC
KHARIFF
SORGHUM 0.35 0.81 1.05 1.05 0.55
GROUNDNUT 0.35 0.79 1 1 0.58
GREEN GRAM 0.35 0.72 1.1 0.28
CHILLIES 0.4 0.35 0.79 1 1 1
RAGI 0.35 0.81 1.05 1.05 0.28
MILLETS 0.35 0.81 1.05 1.05 0.28
RABI
MAIZE 1.15 0.6 0.35 0.89 1.15
WHEAT 1.15 0.2 0.75 1.15
TWO SEASON
COTTON 0.35 0.87 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.65
PERENIAL
SUGERCANE 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.88 0.65 0.6 0.8 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.25
4.4.12 Calculation procedure for Regression analysis
1. Consider ET0 value of standard FAO Penman-Monteith method as Y

2. Consider ET0 value estimated by each of four method as X
3. With the help of regression equation i.e. Y=mX+C
4. Determine slope (m)
5. Care was taken to force the regressions lines to have intercept zero for all the cases so
C equals to zero.
6. For calculation of R2 ,mean of X ,mean of Y, standard deviation of X (Sx) and
standard deviation of Y (Sy) and Covariance of X and Y (Sxy) is to be determined.
7. Later with the help of equation R2 value is determined.
4.4.13 Calculation procedure for Statistical Error analysis
1. Consider ET0 value of standard FAO Penman-Monteith method as Y

2. Consider ET0 value estimated by each of four method as X
3. With the help of equations determine RMSE,AAD and ARE
4. Based on the results the better method is evaluated so that can be used when standard
FAO Penman-Monteith method could not be used due to lack of data.
4.5 Calculation of Reference evapotranspiration (ET0)
4.5.1 Input meterological data
Calculation of ET0 with the Penman-Monteith equation, Hargreaves equation, Thornthwaite

equation , Turc equation and Pritly-Taylor equation on 24-hours time scales will generally
provide accurate results. The meterological data of Belagavi city for the period of January
2019- December 2019 were analysed for calculating ET0.
Table 4.3 Statistics of Monthly climatic data
YEAR MONTH MEAN MEAN MEAN MAX SUNSHINE WIND
MAX MIN AVERAGE RELATIVE POSSIBLE n IN HRS SPEED

TEMP TEMP TEMP HUMIDITY DURATION
IN OC IN OC IN OC IN % SUNSHINE KM/HRS
N IN HRS
2019 JAN 30 14.1 22.05 65 11.3 8.7 2.2
FEB 32.4 16.3 24.35 64 11.6 9.2 2.5
MAR 34.2 19.6 26.9 60 12 9.2 3.5
APR 36 21.8 28.9 58 12.5 9 4
MAY 35.8 21.9 28.85 59 12.8 8.5 8.1
JUN 30.7 20.7 25.7 63 13 4.9 8.3
JUL 28.6 19.9 24.25 65 12.9 3.1 8
AUG 28.5 20 24.25 66 12.6 4.3 7.5
SEP 28.9 20.3 24.6 66 12.2 5.5 5.4
OCT 31.5 20.1 25.8 66 11.8 7.2 3.5
NOV 30.5 17.8 24.15 60 11.4 7.6 1.1
DEC 30.2 15.4 22.8 66 11.2 8.7 1.9
4.5.2 Calculation procedures
Several procedures have been developed to assess the evapotranspiration rate from
required parameters. ET0 expresses the evaporating power of the atmosphere at a specific
location and time of the year. The calculation procedure consists of the following steps:
Derivation of climatic parameters from the daily maximum (T max) and minimum (T min)
air temperature and mean wind speed (u2). Calculation of vapour pressure deficit (es-ea). The
saturation vapour pressure (es) is derived from T max and T min while the actual vapour pressure
(ea) is derived from the mean relative humidity (RHmean).

Determination of the net radiation (Rn) as the difference between the net shortwave
radiation (Rns) and the net long wave radiation (Rnl). The effect of soil heatflux (G) is ignored
for daily calculation as the magnitude of the flux in this case is relatively small.
Table 4.4 Average values of the calculated parameters
MONT SLOP
H e0max e0min es ea E Ra Rs Rso Rns Rnl Rn G
KP Kpa MJm- MJm- MJm- MJm- MJm-
a Kpa C
O -1 2 2 2 2 2
MJm-2 MJm-2
day-1 day-1 day-1 day-1 day-1 day-1 day-1

2.9 1.9
JAN 4.24 1.61 3 0 0.16 12.00 7.62 9.18 5.87 4.23 1.63 0.00
3.3 2.1
FEB 4.86 1.85 6 5 0.18 13.30 8.60 10.18 6.62 4.11 2.51 0.00
3.8 2.3
MAR 5.38 2.28 3 0 0.21 14.70 9.31 11.25 7.17 3.91 3.26 0.00
4.2 2.4
APR 5.94 2.61 8 8 0.23 15.60 9.52 11.94 7.33 3.55 3.77 0.00
4.2 2.5
MAY 5.88 2.63 5 1 0.23 16.00 9.31 12.24 7.17 3.28 3.90 0.00
3.4 2.1
JUN 4.42 2.44 3 6 0.20 15.90 6.97 12.17 5.37 2.23 3.14 0.00
3.1 2.0
JUL 3.91 2.32 2 3 0.18 15.90 5.89 12.17 4.53 1.64 2.89 0.00
3.1 2.0
AUG 3.89 2.34 1 6 0.18 15.70 6.60 12.01 5.09 2.10 2.99 0.00
3.1 2.1
SEP 3.98 2.38 8 0 0.18 15.00 7.13 11.48 5.49 2.59 2.91 0.00
3.4 2.3
OCT 4.62 2.35 9 0 0.20 13.90 7.72 10.64 5.94 3.15 2.79 0.00
3.2 1.9
NOV 4.37 2.04 0 2 0.18 12.40 7.23 9.49 5.57 3.81 1.76 0.00
3.0 1.9
DEC 4.29 1.75 2 9 0.17 11.60 7.41 8.88 5.70 4.17 1.53 0.00
4.5.3 Estimating monthly reference evapotranspiration (ET0)
Values of ET0 [mm month-1] by FAO Penman-Monteith method as shown in Table 4.5 and
Fig 4.5
Table 4.5 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by FAO Penman-Monteith method

MONTH ET0 [mm month-1]

Jan 63.19
Feb 73.09
Mar 118.33
Apr 138.18
May 205.19
Jun 157.80
Jul 142.91
Aug 135.46
Sep 112.27
Oct 95.79
Nov 45.75
Dec 55.97
Values of ET0 [mm month-1] by Hargreaves Method as shown in Table 4.6 and Fig 4.6
Table 4.6 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Hargreaves Method

Jan 135.96
Feb 144.86
Mar 179.02
Apr 189.42
May 198.41
Jun 150.92
Jul 140.61
Aug 137.23
Sep 128.69
Oct 141.19
Nov 132.17
Dec 125.02
Values of ET0 [mm month-1] by Thornthwaite Method as shown in Table 4.7 and Fig 4.7
Table 4.7 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Thornthwaite Method

Jan 54.46
Feb 65.21
Mar 97.52
Apr 119.08
May 128.57
Jun 91.82
Jul 80.33
Aug 78.43
Sep 75.75
Oct 85.5
Nov 66.2
Dec 59.2
Values of ET0 [mm month-1] by Turc Method as shown in Table 4.8 and Fig 4.8
Table 4.8 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Turc Method

Jan 22.72
Feb 23.54
Mar 28.91
Apr 29.26
May 29.69
Jun 21.85
Jul 19.42
Aug 21.17
Sep 21.85
Oct 24.47
Nov 21.93
Dec 22.54
Values of ET0 [mm month-1] by Pristly –Taylor Method as shown in Table 4.9 and Fig 4.9
Table 4.9 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Pristly –Taylor Method

Jan 20.12
Feb 21.04
Mar 25.13
Apr 27.26
May 27.69
Jun 20.85
Jul 18.4
Aug 20.07
Sep 20.85
Oct 21.47
Nov 20.93
Dec 21.54

FAO PENMAN-MONTEITH METHOD

REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MONTHS
Fig 4.5: Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by FAO Penman-Monteith

method
HARGREAVES METHOD
250.00
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
200.00
REFERENCE
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
MONTHS
Fig 4.6: Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by Hargreaves Method

THORNTHWAITE METHOD
140
REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
MONTHS
Fig 4.7: Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by Thornthwaite Method
TURC METHOD
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
MONTHS
Fig 4.8: Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by Turc Method

PRISTLY-TAYLOR METHOD
30
25
20
[mm/month]
15
10
5
MONTHS
0
Fig 4.8: Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by Pristly-Taylor Method

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 ETc for different Agricultural Plantations
ETc is calculated by multiplying ET0 by Kc, a coefficient expressing the difference in

evapotranspiration between the cropped and reference grass surface. The difference can be
combined into single crop coefficient, or it can be split into two factors describing separately
the difference in evapotranspiration and transpiration between both surfaces. In a present
study, a single time-averaged crop coefficient is used to calculate ETc on monthly basis. ETc
value per season varies from mm to mm.
The consolidated monthly ETc values from monthly based calculations for different crop /
plants on Belagavi area are tabulated in Table 5.1 ,Table 5.2 , Table 5.3, Table 5.4 and Table
5.5 using FAO Penman-monteith method, Hargreaves Method, Thornthwaite Method, Turc
Method and Pristly-Taylor Method respectively and the same were presented in Fig 5.1 , Fig
5.2 , Fig 5.3 , Fig 5.4 and Fig 5.5 respectively using this preliminary ETc calculations.
Comparison of ETc by all methods is shown in Fig 6.6 with respect to the calculations.
5.2 Regressions analysis and statistical error analysis (Seasonal

analysis)
The regressions analysis was done to examine the performance of four methods compared
with the standard ET0 (by FAO Penman-Monteith method) on monthly and seasonal basis.
Further, statistical error analysis was carried out with the parameters; root mean square error
(RMSE), absolute average deviation (AAD) and absolute relative error (ARE)
The regression analysis between monthly ET0 estimates of each of the method and standard
ET0 was done for three seasons (Rabi: October to December; Summer: Jan to March and
Kharif: April to September) to evaluate performance of each of the technique. The definition
of time frame of each season is based on standard agricultural practice followed in the region.

Table 5.6: Summary statistics of regression and error (mm/month) analysis between standard
and estimated ET0. The trend of predicting/estimating ET0 by each technique is derived by
comparing the ET0 estimates with standard ET0 values and numerated in the form of slope of
trend line and coefficient of determination (R2) in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8: Error (mm/month)
analysis between values of standard and estimated ET0 for three seasons.
On the basis of errors in estimating ET0 in Rabi Season Thornthwaite method is performed
better over all other methods with lowest value RMSE [3.49] as shown in Table: 5.8
Though the R2 value of Hargreaves method was highest [0.66] in Rabi season however the
difference in R2 value between Thornthwaite method and Hargreaves method is practically
insufficient. So in Rabi season Thornthwaite holds the first rank of best method among all
four methods for estimating Potential evapotranspiration (ET0) and less data is required for
this method and does not have any practical significance in data non-availability scenario.
On the other hand, less data demanding Turc method holds the second rank in Rabi season
based on error analysis (RMSE= 6.88).
In Kharif season Hargreaves method performs better than all other methods with lowest
RMSE (4.05), lowest AAD (16.47). The remaining methods having RMSE more than the
Hargreaves method and also AAD value, so Hargreaves method is the best method in Kharif
season for estimating ET0 compared with reference to FAO Penman-Monteith method
(Standard method).
In summer season the R2 value of all the methods are low hence no inference can be drawn
from the values. It is observed that the values of RMSE in summer season are high in case of
all methods. This may be due to the extreme hot and dry climate during summer months at
the Belagavi region. However the performance of Hargreaves method in summer season in
appreciable as compared to all other methods as it utilizes very small amount of
meteorological data and provide fairly accurate results of ET0.

Table 5.1 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by FAO-Penman monteith method
CROP PERIOD ETc [mm per season]

SORGHUM APR-SEP 125.58
GROUNDNUT APR-SEP 119.60
GREEN
GRAM APR-SEP 131.56
CHILLIES APR-SEP 119.60
RAGI APR-SEP 125.58
MILLETS APR-SEP 125.58
MAIZE OCT-DEC 167.20
WHEAT OCT-DEC 167.20
COTTON JUNE-DEC 156.74
SUGERCANE JAN-DEC 161.59
Table 5.2 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Hargreaves Method

GREEN GRAM APR-SEP 173.30
RAGI APR-SEP 165.42
MAIZE OCT-DEC 152.71
WHEAT OCT-DEC 152.71

Table 5.3 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Thornthwaite Method
CROPS PERIOD ETc [mm per season]

RAGI APR-SEP 100.45
MAIZE OCT-DEC 80.85
WHEAT OCT-DEC 80.85
Table 5.4 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Turc Method

RAGI APR-SEP 25.07
MAIZE OCT-DEC 26.43
WHEAT OCT-DEC 26.43

Table 5.5 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Pristly-Taylor Method

RAGI APR-SEP 23.65
MAIZE OCT-DEC 24.51
WHEAT OCT-DEC 24.51
Table 5.6: Summary statistics of regression and error (mm/month) analysis between standard
and estimated ET0
METHODS Regression R2 RMSE AAD ARE
equation
Hargreaves method Y=0.36X 0.466 5.73 36.74 0.25

Thornthwaite
method Y=0.4X 0.7 5.76 35.9 0.4
Turc method Y= 0.027X 0.14 9.56 95.77 3.93

Priestly-taylor Y=0.0288
method X 0.216 9.6 93.62 4.33

Table 5.7: Regression analysis between monthly values of standard and estimated ET0 for
three seasons
Thornthwaite Priestly-Taylor
SEASON Hargreaves method method Turc method method
m R2 m R2 m R2 m R2
0.3
RABI 0.38 0.66 0.45 0.78 0.04 0.23 0.03 2
0.2
KHARIF 0.31 0.48 0.38 0.67 0.023 0.146 0.026 6
0.2
SUMMER 0.28 0.46 0.35 0.38 0.02 0.122 0.022 1
Table 5.8: Error (mm/month) analysis between values of standard and estimated ET0 for three
seasons
Hargreaves method Thornthwait

SEASON e method
RMSE AAD ARE RMSE AAD ARE
RABI 8.49 72.14 0.52 3.49 12.22 0.17
KHARIF 4.05 16.47 0.12 6.45 41.6 0.52
SUMMER 4.65 21.63 0.12 7.34 53.9 0.49
Priestly-
Turc Taylor
SEASON method method
RMSE AAD ARE RMSE AAD ARE
RABI 6.88 47.33 1.9 7.03 37.66 2.22
KHARIF 9.99 99.88 4.7 10.07 101.41 5.09
SUMMER 11.83 140.12 5.28 11.9 141.79 5.68

FAO-PENMAN MONTEITH METHOD

CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
180.00
160.00
140.00
mm/season
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
M
AM
GI
ZE
ON
E
CROPS
IE
ET
NU
AN
HU
RA
AI
HE
ILL
TT
GR
ILL
RC
ND
M
RG
CO
CH
GE
N
OU
SO
EE
SU
GR
GR
Fig 5.1 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BY FAO-PENMAN MONTEITH METHOD
Hargreaves Method
200.00
180.00
160.00
mm/season
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
M
AM
GI
ZE
AT
ON
CROPS
IE
ET
NU
AN
HU
RA
AI
HE
ILL
TT
GR
ILL
RC
ND
M
RG
CO
CH
GE
N
OU
SO
EE
SU
GR
GR
Fig 5.2 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BY HARGREAVES METHOD

120.00
100.00
mm/season
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
M
AM
GI
ZE
AT
ON
E
IE
ET
NU
AN
HU
RA
AI
HE
ILL
TT
GR
ILL
RC
ND
M
RG
CO
CH
GE
N
OU
SO
EE
SU
GR
GR
CROPS
Fig 5.3 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BY THORNTHWAITE METHOD
TURC METHOD
35.00
30.00
25.00
mm/season
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
M
AM
GI
ZE
AT
ON
E
IE
ET
NU
AN
CROPS
HU
RA
AI
HE
ILL
TT
GR
ILL
RC
ND
M
RG
CO
CH
GE
N
OU
SO
EE
SU
GR
GR
Fig 5.4 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BY TURC METHOD

PRISTLY-TAYLOR METHOD
CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
mm/season
10.00
5.00
0.00
M
AM
GI
ZE
E
IE
ET
CROPS
NU
AN
O
HU
RA
AI
HE
ILL
TT
GR
ILL
RC
ND
M
RG
CO
CH
GE
N
OU
SO
EE
SU
GR
GR
Fig 5.5 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BY PRISTLY-TAYLOR METHOD
COMPARISON OF CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF

DIFFERENT METHODS
200.00
180.00
mm/season
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00 FAO-PENMAN MONTEITH-M
60.00 HARGREAVES-M
40.00 THORNTHWAITE-M
20.00 CROPS TURC-M
0.00 PRISTLY-TAYLOR -M
OU UM
UT
CH M
M GI
W E
CO T
GE ON
E
IE
ET
AN
A
RA
AI
HE
GR NDN
ILL
T
GR
ILL
GR GH
RC
M
T
R
N
SO
EE
SU
Fig 5.6 Comparison of crop evapotranspiration of different methods

5.3 Conclusion
 It is observed that in Rabi season Thornthwaite method is performed better over all
other methods with lowest RMSE i.e. 3.49. So in Rabi season Thornthwaite method
holds the first rank of best method among all four methods for estimating Potential
evapotranspiration (ET0) and less data is required for this method.
 It is observed that in Kharif season Hargreaves method performed better that all the
other methods with lowest RMSE i.e. 4.05 and lowest AAD i.e. 16.47. The remaining
methods having RMSE more than the Hargreaves method and also AAD value, so
Hargreaves method is the best method in Kharif season for estimating ET0 compared
with reference to FAO Penman-Monteith method (Standard method).
 In summer season the R2 value of all the methods are low and it is observed that the
values of RMSE in summer season are high in case of all methods. This may be due
to the extreme hot and dry climate during summer months at the Belagavi region.
However the performance of Hargreaves method in summer season in appreciable as
compared to all other methods as it utilizes very small amount of meteorological data
and provide fairly accurate results of ET0.
 The comparative performance evaluation of these four ET estimation techniques done
in this project is site specific and the results may vary site to site, but this form of
study will help decision maker to select the best possible ET estimation technique
with respect to data constraints or accuracy constrains.

REFERENCES
1. Bhaskar R. Nikam, Pradeep Kumar, Vaibhav Garg, Praveen K. Thakur and S.
P. Aggarwal "COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT
POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATION APPROACHES"
Article in International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology(IJRET) ,June 2014
2. C. K. Arya, R. C. Purohit , L. K. Dashora1 , P. K. Singh, Mahesh Kothari and
Bhim Singh "Comparative evaluation of different reference evapotranspiration
models" Journal of Applied and Natural Science 9 (1): 609 - 613 (2017) .
3. Jerry L. Hatfied and John H. Prueger analyzed the spatial and temporal
variation in evapotranspiration for various locations.
4. Priestley, C. H. B. and Taylor, R. J. (1972). On the assessment of surface heat
flux and evaporation using largescale parameters.
5. Metrological department Belagavi.
6. Smajstrla, A. G., Clark, G. A. and Shih, S. F. (1984). Comparison of potential
evapotranspiration calculation methods in a humid region. Paper No. 8420/0.
7. Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A. (1985). Reference crop
evapotranspiration from temperature. Applied Engineering in Agriculture.
8. Kumar, K. K., Kumar, K. R. and Rakhecha, P. R. (1987). Comparison of
Penman and Thornthwaite methods of estimating potential evapotranspiration
for Indian conditions. Theoretical and Applied Climatology.
9. Azhar, A. H. and Perera, B. J. C. (2011) Evaluation of reference
evapotranspiration estimation methods under Southeast Australian conditions.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
10. Xu, C.-Y. and Singh, V. P. (2002). Cross comparison of empirical equations
for calculating potential evapotranspiration with data from Switzerland.

WEBSITE BIBILIOGRAPHY
 http://earth.google.com
 http://belgaum.nic.in
 http://wikipedia/belagavi

APPENDIX-
Example: Determination of ET0 with daily data
The available meterological data as obtained in the month of January located at 150 52' 53.87"
N latitude and 740 28' 8.02" E longitudes and at 760 m above sea level:
Maximum air temperature (Tmax) = 30 0C
Minimum air temperature (Tmin) = 14.1 0C
Mean air temperature (Tmean) = 22.05 0C
Mean relative humidity (RHmean) = 65%
Wind speed measured at 2 m height = 2.2 m/s
Actual hours of sunshine (n) = 8.7 hours/day
FAO PENMN-MONTEITH EQUATION:
ET0 = 0.408∆ (Rn –G) + ϒ (900/ (T+273)) u2 (es –ea)
∆ + (1+0.34u2)
Where ET0 reference evapotranspiration [mmday-1]
Rn net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1]
G soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1]
T mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [0C]
u2 wind speed at 2m height [ms-1]
es saturation vapour pressure [KPa]
ea actual vapour pressure [KPa]
ϒ psychometric constant [KPa 0C-1]

 From Eq.3.5, Atmospheric pressure (P)
P = 101.3 ((293-0.0065z)/293)5.26
Z = 760 m
P = 92.63 KPa
 From Eq.3.6, Psychometric constant (ϒ):
ϒ= cp P/єλ = 0.665 X 10-3 P
P = 92.63 KPa
ϒ = 0.061 KPa
 From eq.3.7, mean saturation vapour pressure (es):
e0 (T) = 0.6108 exp [17.27T/ (T+273.3)]
For e0 (Tmax):
e0 (Tmax) = 0.6108 exp [17.27Tmax/ (Tmax+273.3)]
Tmax = 30 0C
e0 (Tmax) = 4.243 KPa
For e0 (Tmin):
e0 (Tmin) = 0.6108 exp [17.27Tmax/ (Tmax+273.3)]
Tmin = 14.1 0C
e0 (Tmin) = 1.609 KPa
For es
es = e0 (Tmax) + e0 (Tmin
es = 2.926 KPa

 From Eq.3.11, Slope of saturation vapour pressure curve (∆)
∆ = 4098 [0.6108 exp (17.27T/ (T+273.3)]

(T+273.3)2
T = 22.05 0C
∆ = 0.162 KPa 0C-1
 From Eq.3.12, Actual vapour pressure (ea) derived from relative humidity data:
ea = (e0 (Tmax) + e0 (Tmin) (RHmean/100)
RHmean = 65%; Tmax = 30 0C ;Tmin = 14.1 0C
ea = 1.902 KPa
 Vapour pressure deficit (es – ea):
(es – ea) = (2.926-1.902)

(es – ea) = 1.024 KPa
 Extraterrestrial radiation (Ra):
From Table 2, of FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, by interpolation of Ra
values for latitudes 150 52' 53.87" N, Ra value of 12MJ m-2 day-1 is obtained for the
month of Jan 2018.
 Mean daily duration of Maximum Possible Sunshine Hours (N):
From Table 3, of FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24 by interpolation of N

Values for 150 52' 53.87" N latitude and 740 28' 8.02" E and for month of Jan
N value obtained is 11.3.
 From Eq.3.14, Solar Radiation (Rs):
Rs = (as + bs n/N) Ra
as = 0.25; n = 8.7 ; N = 11.3; Ra = 12MJ m-2 day-1
Rs = 7.62 MJ m-2 day-1
 From Eq.3.15, Clear-sky solar radiation (Rso):
Rso = (0.75 + 2x10-5z) Ra

Ra = 12MJ m-2 day-1
z = 760 m
Rso = 9.18MJ m-2 day-1
 From Eq.3.16, Net solar or net shortwave radiation (Rns):
Rns = (1-α) Rs
Rs = 7.62 MJ m-2 day-1
Rns = 5.87 MJ m-2 day-1
 From Eq.3.17, Net long wave radiation (Rnl):
Tmin,k = 0C +273.16 = 14.1 0C +273.16 = 287.2
Rnl = σ [] (0.34-0.14) (1.3 -0.35)
Rnl = 4.23 MJ m-2 day-1
 From Eq. 3.19, Net Radiation (Rn):
Rn = Rns - Rnl
Rn = 1.63 MJ m-2 day-1

 From Eq.3.19, Soil heat flux (G):
As the magnitude of the day heat flux beneath the grass reference surface is relatively
small, it may be ignored thus Gday =0
FAO PENMAN-MONTEITH METHOD:

FAO PENMAN-MONTEITH EQUATION TO ESTIMATE ET0:
ET0 =
ET0 = 2.04 mm day-1
ET0 = 63.19 mm month-1.
ETc FOR SORGHUM FOR THE MONTH OF AUG 2019:
Kc of Sorghum for month of Aug = 1.05
ETc = Kc ET0
ETc = 1.05 63.19
ETc = 66.34 mm month-1
TEMPERATURE BASED METHOD:

 HARGREAVES EQUATION TO ESTIMATE ET0:
ET0 =
ET0 = 135.96 mm month-1
ETc = Kc ET0
ETc = 1.05 135.96

 THORNTHWAITE EQUATION TO ESTIMATE ET0:
ET0 =
K= Months (Jan, Feb…Dec)
ET0 = 54.46 mm month-1
ETc = Kc ET0
ETc = 1.05 54.46
RADIATION BASED METHODS:

 TURC EQUATION TO ESTIMATE ET0:
RHmean50%
ET0 =
RHmean 50%
ET0 =
ETc = Kc ET0
ETc = 1.05 22.72

 PRISTLY-TAYLOR EQUATION TO ESTIMATE ET0:
ET0 =
ETc = Kc ET0
ETc = 1.05 20.12
 Regression Analysis:
Regression equation
Where,
Y: STANDARD METHOD ET0 [mm month-1]
X: HARGREAVES METHOD ET0 [mm month-1]
m: slope
C: intercept (assumed to be zero)
Slope: m
m = 0.36
C = 0
regression equation :
Y= 0.36X
R2 Calculation
Equation:
N (number of data values) = 12
Mean(X) = 150.29
Standard deviation (Sx) = 24.65
Mean(Y) =111.99
Standard deviation (Sy) =47.38
Covariance of X and Y (Sxy) =798.41
Correlation (R) =0.683
R2 =0.466
R2 = 46.6%
 Statistical Error analysis
(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)
Rabi Season
RMSE= 6.880261623
AAD= 47.338
ARE 1.909709913
SUMMER
Season
RMSE= 11.8373702
AAD= 140.1233333
ARE= 5.285179058

KHARIF Seasn
RMSE= 9.993998199
AAD= 99.88
ARE= 4.702597528

A1 Batch Project Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A1 Batch Project Report Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A1 Batch Project Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KARNATAK LAW SOCIETY’S

GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(An Autonomous Institution under Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)

Department of Civil Engineering

“COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT POTENTIAL

CHAITRA PATIL 2GI17CV024

GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(An Autonomous Institution under Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)

Department of Civil Engineering

Guide Co-Guide HOD Principal

Name of the examiners Date of Viva -voce Signature

My sincere thanks to Prof. Namrata Angadi, Department of Civil Engineering, KLS

Accurate estimation of potential evapotranspiration is necessary step in water resources

Keywords: Evapotranspiration , FAO56,Penman-monteith Method, Hargreaves Method,

Chapter Title Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-11

1.1 Evapotranspiration Process 1

1.2 Factors affecting Evapotranspiration 4

1.3 Evapotranspiration Concepts 5

1.4 Determination of Evapotranspiration 9

1.5 Scope of study 10

1.6 Objectives of the present study 10

1.7 Organization of the report 11

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 13-15

3.0 DIFFERENT METHODS OF

3.1 FAO PENMAN-MONTEITH METHOD 16-31

4.0 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF THE STUDY AREA 40-65

Table No. Description Page No.

1.1 Average ET0 for different agro climatic regions in mm/day 8

4.2 Crop coefficient (Kc) 56

4.3 Statistics of Monthly climatic data 58

4.4 Average values of the calculated parameters 59

4.5 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by FAO Penman-Monteith method 60

4.6 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Hargreaves Method 60

4.7 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Thornthwaite Method 61

4.8 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Turc Method 61

4.9 Monthly ET0 [mm month-1] by Pristly –Taylor Method 62

5.1 ETc values of different crops in mm/season by FAO-Penman monteith method 68

5.2 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Hargreaves Method 68

5.3 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Thornthwaite Method 69

5.4 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Turc Method 69

5.5 ETc values of different crops in mm per season by Pristly-Taylor Method 70

5.6 Summary statistics of regression and error analysis 70

5.7 Summary Regression analysis 71

Fig. No. Description Page NO.

1.1 Schematic representation of a stoma 2

1.2 The partitioning of evapotranspiration into evaporation and 3

Transpiration over the growing period for an annual field crop.

1.3 3 Factors affecting evapotranspiration with reference to related ET 4

1.4 Reference evapotranspiration (ET0),crop evapotranspiration(ETc) 6

under standard and non- standard conditions (ETc adj )

4.1 Google Earth Satellite Imagery showing study area 40

4.2 Location map of study area 41

4.3 The effect of evaporation on Kc 51

4.4 Generalized crop coefficient curve for the single crop 52

4.5 Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by FAO 63

4.6 Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by 63

4.7 Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by 64

4.8 Monthly reference evapotranspiration for months by 64