Evaporation from Washtubs
Covered by Various Size Screens
Gerald L. Westesen, Samir Mohamed Ismail
MEMBER
ASAE
ABSTRACT
VAPORATION from wash tubs is reduced by
E screening. The evaporation reduction ranged from
about 40% for small mesh screen to 10% for large mesh
screen. Evaporation from unscreened tubs corresponded
closely to that from a standard pan. Substitutions of the
appropriate cover screen could allow the elimination of a
crop coefficient in some irrigation scheduling programs.
INTRODUCTION
Optimum crop production under irrigation requires
application of the proper amount of water at the proper
time. Many irrigation scheduling methods have been
tried and many have met with limited success,
particularly in areas where water has been relatively
abundant and of low cost. In an effort to provide a
scheduling method of reasonable cost, acceptability, and
accuracy, wash tub evaporation pans were used as part of
an extension program (Westesen 1978). The success of
this program was good. Tubs were used in many
geographic areas of Montana and the United States
(Westesen 1980).
Farmers adopted this scheduling method readily,
particularly those with sprinkler irrigation systems.
Farmers related the evaporation from the tubs to crop
water use. In the early stages of this program no attempt
was made to instruct the farmers in the use of a crop
coefficient. For alfalfa and small grains the coefficient
was nearly equal to one for much of the growing season.
Although this approximation probably led to some over
irrigation, the magnitude of that overirrigation was
extremely small compared to past practices (Westesen,
1981). Refinements involving the use of a crop coefficient
and measured tub evaporation were subsequently
incorporated in an Extension bulletin and introduced to
farmers (Bauder 1982).
Through the use of crop coefficients, the amount of
water applied could more nearly match crop water use,
but this calculation presented an additional burden when
the system was used by farmers. In an attempt to
eliminate calculation from the program a research effort
was initiated to identify the effect of cover screen size on
tub evaporation. This research effort tested the
Article was submitted for publication in May, 1985; reviewed and
approved for publication by the Soil and Water Div. of ASAE in
September, 1985.
Funded by Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana
State University, Project MONB 125A.
The authors are: GERALD L. WESTESEN, Professor, Agricultural
Engineering Dept., Montana State University, Bozeman; and SAMIR
MOHAMED ISMAIL, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Engineering
Dept., Alexandria Univ., Alexandria, Egypt.
100 © 1985 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0883-8542/85/0102-0100$02.00
following. Could the use of cover screens with the proper
size opening reduce evaporation by a controlled and
predictable amount? If so, the amount of the reduction
for a particular screen size would correspond to the
appropriate crop coefficient for that period. Thus, the
farmer could use two or three size screens, with the finer
mesh screen used early and late in the season and no
screen or a coarser mesh used during periods of peak
water use. In addition and because it was convenient,
further verification ws also made of the evaporation from
an unscreened tub as compared to a standard
evaporation pan (Brakensiek 1979).
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the evaporation reduction achieved
by various screen mesh size covers as compared to an
unscreened tub and pan.
2. To assess whether farmers could use different
cover screens in place of a crop coefficient.
3. To compare the evaporation from an unscreened
pan to evaporation from a standard weather bureau pan.
METHODS AND MATERIAL
This experiment was conducted using No. 1 wash tubs.
This tub evaporates water at approximately the same
rate as a standard weather bureau pan (Sims and
Jackson 1971). The tub is about 48 cm in diameter and
25 cm deep with slightly sloping sides. Field installation
includes a cover screen, tie downs, and a platform. These
items were standardized in this experiment. The
framework for the screen was made from finished 38 mm
x 38 mm wood 60 cm long. Pieces were drilled and bolted
together with 6 mm bolts. Eye bolts were used on two
corners to give a ring to attach the elastic cord used to
hold the screen to the base. The base was made from two
38 mm x 86 mm and two 19 mm x 43 mm boards each 40
cm long nailed together. A wash tub evaporation station
is shown in Fig. 1.
Four screen mesh sizes were used to cover the tubs. An
attempt was made to use screen mesh sizes which are and
will be commonly available to the farm community.
Fig. 1—Washtub evaporation station.
APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE
Screen mesh sizes were 3 mm, 6 mm, and 12 mm lOOr
hardware cloth of 27, 23, and 19 gauge respectively; and
24 mm chicken wire. The screen was fastened to the
wood frame with a heavy duty staple gun. One set of tubs
was unscreened. Four tubs of each screen mesh size were
used plus the unscreened set for a total of twenty tubs.
This number allowed four replications of each treatment.
A completely randomized design was followed and the
data were analyzed statistically.
Tubs were placed in an alfalfa field adjacent to the
U.S. weather station at the Post Research Center located
7 km west of Bozeman, MT. The weather station is
complete and is considered a benchmark station. The
tubs were placed randomly in a rectangular pattern 3.3
m apart.
Tubs were first filled to a depth of 15 cm and refilled
5 10 15 20
when the water level dropped to 10 cm. Readings were
made twice weekly for two periods during May, June and SCREEN SIZE (mm)
July. Readings were made using a hook gauge read to an
Fig. 2—Average percent evaporation from tubs covered by various size
accuracy of 0.025 mm. Alfalfa was clipped away from the screens compared to unscreened tubs.
tubs by hand for a distance of approximately 30 cm when
it grew above tub height. Tubs were read at 4 p.m. which
was the same time the weather station pan was read. slight difference during the first period is attributed to
Measurements were corrected for precipitation to give the increased height of the alfalfa surrounding the tubs
actual evaporation. as compared to the clipped grass around the pan. The
majority of the values shown for each of these time
RESULTS periods were significant at the 95% level. The number of
The evaporation from the tubs covered with screens of readings that were significantly different increased as the
varying mesh size, unscreened and from the standard length of the time period increased. The difference in the
evaporation pan is shown in Table 1. The average number of values that are significantly different between
percent evaporation from tubs covered by various size the two periods is attributed to the following. During the
screens compared to unscreened tubs is shown in Fig. 2. first period all tubs were surrounded by alfalfa of very
The evaporation increased as the mesh size increased. uniform growth characteristics and height. The second
The evaporation from the unscreened tub was very nearly period immediately followed cutting and a prolonged
equal to that from the weather bureau pan providing rain. The growing pattern of the alfalfa surrounding the
further verification of the adaptability and utility of the tubs was extremely haphazard with many blank areas
tub as a substitute for the much more expensive pan. The mixed with areas of rank growth. A significance level of
95% is highly acceptable for farm irrigation scheduling.
It appears that this significance level can be achieved by
TABLE 1. EVAPORATION FROM TUBS COVERED WITH careful measurement and locating the tubs in an area
VARIOUS SIZE SCREENS DURING SIX OVERLAPPING where crop growth is uniform. The percent evaporation
TIME PERIODS. IDENTICAL SUPERSCRIPTS INDICATE from a screened tub as compared to an unscreened tub
NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AT THE 95%
CONFIDENCE LEVEL. was approximately 60, 70, 80, and 90% for the 3 mm, 6
mm, 12 mm, and 24 mm mesh screen sizes respectively.
Period one Period two
Screen size, Mean evaporation, Mean evaporation,
mm mm mm
APPLICATION
The following example illustrates the use of this
May 23-26 July 19-22
3 10.9 18.8 a scheduling concept. Grass or pasture is a common
6 13.0 20.6 a ' b Montana crop. The crop coefficient for grass is 0.50 at
12 16.0 a 21.6 b < c the beginning of the growing season, 0.84 at the end of
24 17.2 a < b 23.8 C
None 18.2 b 26.4 three weeks, and 1.02 at the end of six weeks (Bauder
Pan 22.4 22.9 1982). The average crop coefficient for the first three-
May 20-26 July 15-22 week period is 0.71 and for the next three-week period is
0.93. The irrigator could conveniently choose a 6 mm
3 21.6 34.0 a mesh cover screen for the first period and a 24 mm mesh
6 26.7 36.6a'b
12 29.5 41 <7 b,c cover screen for the second period. The crop coefficient is
24 33.0 42.2 C about 1.0 through the middle of the season. If animals
None 36.8 49.5 and trash accumulation are not a problem, the irrigator
Pan 38.6 46.7
should use an unscreened tub.
May 20-June 3 July 15-29
3 49.3 58.7 a SUMMARY
6 57.9 65.3 a * b
12 62.7 64.5b'c Evaporation from wash tubs is reduced by screening
24 70.3 80.0 C the tub. The amount of evaporation reduction depends
None 74.7 88.9 on the size of the screen used. The reduction ranged from
Pan 81.2 86.4
about 40% for the smallest screen to about 10% for the

Vol. l(2):November, 1985 101

largest. Evaporation from the unscreened tubs
corresponded closely to that of the standard pan.
Substitution of the appropriate screen size in the cover
commonly used with the tub could allow the elimination
of the mathematical calculation and record keeping
associated with the use of a crop coefficient. The exact
screen size selected and its period of use depends on the
crop grown and the crop growth stage. Farmers will need
advice on screen choice and use.
102
References
1. Bauder, J. W., L. D. King, and G. L. Westesen. 1982.
Scheduling irrigation with evaporation pans. Montana Cooperative
Extension Bulletin 1262.
2; Brakensiek, D. L., H. B. Osburn, and W. J. Rawls. 1979. Field
manual for research in agricultural hydrology. Agricultural Handbook
224, SEA, USDA.
3. Sims, J. R. and G. D. Jackson. 1971. Field measurement of pan
evaporation. AGRONOMY JOURNAL 63:339-340.
4. Westesen, G. L. 1978. Scheduling irrigation with evaporation
pans. Montana Cooperative Extension Circular 1211.
5. Westesen, G. L., and P. Kresge. 1980. Irrigation scheduling
using wash tub evaporation pans. ASAE Paper 80-203.
6. Westesen, G. L., and T. L. Hanson. 1981. Irrigation scheduling
using wash tub evaporation pans. ASAE Irrigation Scheduling
Conference Proceedings, ASAE Publ. 23-81.
APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE