EFFECTIVE RAINFALL ESTIMATION M E T H O D S

By Avinash S. Patwardhan, 1 John L. Nieber, 2 and Eldon L. Johns, 3

Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Numerous methods for estimating effective rainfall have been pro-
posed in the past, including: direct measurement techniques; empirical methods;
and soil water balance methods. The best estimates of effective rainfall can be
obtained by conducting soil water balance computations. A soil water balance model
(SWBM) for estimating effective rainfall was used to test the accuracy of the United
States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS) and the
Hershfield effective rainfall estimation methods for a well-drained soil and for a
poorly drained soil. Estimates of mean annual monthly effective rainfall by the
USDA-SCS and estimates of mean annual growing season effective rainfall by the
Hershfield method were found to compare closely with estimates from the SWBM
for the well-drained soil but not for the poorly drained soil. Effective rainfall es-
timates by these two methods for either soil condition did not compare well with
the SWBM estimates for annual events with return periods higher than the mean
annual event.

INTRODUCTION

In the design and operation of irrigation systems it is becoming increas-

ingly important to account for the contribution made by natural rainfall in
crop production. Natural rainfall can contribute significantly in meeting con-
sumptive use requirements of crops, provided the knowledge of effective
rainfall is available. In the context of this paper, the term effective rainfall
is taken to mean the portion of total rainfall that assists in meeting the con-
sumptive use requirements of growing crops. This definition contrasts with
the conventional definition used in hydrology where the term effective rain-
fall means that portion of total rainfall that contributes to runoff.
Numerous methods exist for estimating effective rainfall, including: direct
field monitoring techniques; empirical techniques (equations, tables, charts);
and soil water balance methods. The direct field monitoring techniques and
the empirical techniques received most of the attention in terms of research
and applications prior to the 1970s. As computational facilities have become
increasingly accessible to researchers and practitioners the soil water balance
methods have increased in popularity (Saxton et al. 1974; Sands et al. 1982).
Detailed reviews of methods used in estimating effective rainfall have been
presented by Dastane (1974) and Patwardhan et al. (Unpublished report, 1986).
Soil water balance techniques can best characterize effective rainfall for
a given location. The technique accounts for all necessary components of
the soil water balance (rainfall, runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and
'Formerly Grad. Res. Asst., Dept. of Agric. Engrg., Univ. of Minnesota. Pres-
ently Agric. Engr., Aqua Terra Consultants, Mountain View, CA 94043.
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Agric. Engrg., Univ. of Minnesota, 1390 Eckles Ave.,
St. Paul, MN 55108.
3
Hydr. Engr., Bureau of Reclamation, Engrg. and Res. Center, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO 80225.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1990. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April
20, 1988. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
Vol. 116, No. 2, March/April, 1990. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/90/0002-0182/
$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No. 24519.
182

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 deep percolation) and therefore has the flexibility to adapt to various climatic
and soil conditions.
There are at least three potential uses for soil water balance models with
respect to the estimation of effective rainfall. These include: (1) Real-time
estimation of effective rainfall for operation of irrigation systems; (2) design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of irrigation systems with the consideration of effective rainfall; and (3) eval-
uation of methods currently used for the prediction of effective rainfall.
The purpose of this paper is to assess the predictive accuracy of two em-
pirical effective rainfall estimation methods. These methods include the USDA
Soil Conservation Service method (USDA-SCS: "Irrigation" 1967) and the
Hershfield method (1964). A soil water balance model was used in the per-
formance of the assessment.

EFFECTIVE RAINFALL ESTIMATION METHODS

All effective rainfall estimation methods are based on representations and

varying degrees of simplification of the hydrologic cycle. The processes in-
cluded are: rainfall; irrigation; interception; infiltration and runoff; evapo-
transpiration; redistribution (downward) of soil water; and deep percolation.
The equation for the conservation of mass (water) in the soil profile is
expressed as:
Ay = R + IR - {I + Q + ET + DP) (1)
where AV = the change in soil water storage (in mm of water); R = rainfall
(mm); IR = irrigation amount (mm); / = the interception loss (mm); Q =
runoff (mm); ET = evapotranspiration (mm); and DP = deep percolation
(mm). All of these quantities occur over a time period Af.
Effective rainfall (ER) is defined in the model as being that portion of
total rainfall that infiltrates into the soil profile and does not contribute to
deep percolation. This can be expressed as
ER = R - (7 + Q + DP) (2)

Hershfield Nomograph
Hershfield (1964) developed a nomograph for estimating mean annual
growing season ER using mean annual seasonal rainfall, mean annual sea-
sonal ET, and net irrigation application amount. The method assumes that
the irrigation application is uniform throughout the growing season for each
time of irrigation. The nomograph was developed using soil water balance
calculations based on 50 years of daily rainfall data for 22 weather stations
representing every geographical region of the contiguous United States. The
method also provides for the estimation of seasonal ER for frequencies other
than the mean annual value.

Soil Conservation Service Method

The Soil Conservation Service effective rainfall estimation method (USDA-
SCS) is described in detail in USDA-SCS ("Irrigation" 1967) and appears
in several other publications (Pair et al. 1975). The USDA-SCS ER method
was developed with water balance calculations based on 50 years of weather
data from 22 stations within the United States. The 22 stations used in the
USDA-SCS method are identical to those used by Hershfield (1964). The

183

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 TABLE 1. Reference Sources for Equations Used for Developing SWBM
Hydrologic process Reference of equation used
0) (2)
Interception Jong and Cameron (1979)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Evapotranspiration Smith and Williams (1980)

Runoff Smith and Williams (1980)
Deep percolation Williams et al. (1985)

USDA-SCS method is presented in tabular form and is intended to be used

for estimating mean annual monthly effective rainfall based on mean annual
monthly rainfall and mean annual monthly evapotranspiration. The method
does not explicitly account for geographical location, soil type, nor for event
frequency.
The upper limit of mean annual monthly ER is the mean annual monthly
ET according to the USDA-SCS definition. This upper limit condition can
be expressed as
ER^ET (3)
To estimate monthly ER for frequencies other than the mean annual con-
dition (return period of approximately 2 years) the corresponding return pe-
riod monthly rainfall is used (USDA-SCS: "Irrigation" 1967). Since monthly
ET does not vary significantly from year to year it is not necessary to de-
termine ET on a frequency basis; a mean annual value is sufficient.
Soil Water Balance Model
The soil water balance model (SWBM) is physically based, but employs
the simple hydrologic process equations that have been used in models such
as a field scale model for chemical, runoff, and erosion from agricultural
management systems (CREAMS) (Knisel 1980) and simulator for water re-
sources in rural basins (SWRRB) (Williams et al. 1985). The variables on
the right-hand side of Eq. 1 are simulated using equations and methods that
have been incorporated in models developed for other purposes (Richardson
and Wright 1984; Knisel 1980; Williams et al. 1985). The reference sources
for the equations used to simulate all of the hydrologic variables represented
in Eq. 1, except for the rainfall and irrigation components, are summarized
in Table 1. The reader should refer to these references for details on the
rational basis for the selected equations and the method of applying the equa-
tions. A detailed description of the SWBM is presented by Nieber and Pat-
wardhan (1988).
Time series of weather variables including rainfall, solar radiation, and
air temperature were generated using the model WGEN developed by Rich-
ardson and Wright (1984). This model generates the weather variables on a
daily basis. The model accounts for the cross correlation of weather variables
and employs a stochastic model with cross-correlated and location-dependent
parameters.
Irrigation was implemented in the model through the addition of irrigation
water to the soil profile whenever a specified level of soil water deficit was
reached. The net irrigation amount was set so that the soil water deficit was
reduced to zero on the day of irrigation. The specified level of soil water
deficit at which irrigation occurs is an input parameter for the model.
184

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Since the period of interest for estimating effective rainfall is the growing
season, the water balance calculations were limited to the period (for the
northern hemisphere) beginning April 1 and ending October 31 of each year.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The soil water status on April 1 is therefore a model input parameter. Rain-
fall data and weather variables used in estimating ET are not usually readily
available for time intervals less than one day. Therefore, to allow the model
to be widely used, a daily time step was selected as the basis for all model
computations.
The soil water balance model was applied to 50 years of weather data
synthesized for each of 22 locations in the United States using a model for
generating daily weather variables (WGEN model) (Richardson and Wright
1984). Each of these 22 locations were in the vicinity of one of the 22
stations evaluated in the USDA-SCS and Hershfield methods. Only data for
the period beginning on April 1 and ending on October 31 were used in the
simulations. It was assumed that the soil profile was at field capacity on
April 1 of each year.
Water balance calculations were performed for two distinct soil condi-
tions. One soil condition represented a highly permeable, well-drained soil
with a curve number of 42 (antecedent moisture condition /). The other soil
represented a low permeability, poorly drained soil with a curve number of
90 (antecedent moisture condition /). The simulations with the SWBM yielded
monthly rainfall, monthly ET, and monthly ER for each of the seven months
of the 50 years at each of the 22 stations.
In all comparisons of the SWBM results to effective rainfall estimates by
the USDA-SCS and Hershfield methods the net irrigation input was set to
76.2 mm. To derive ER estimates using the USDA-SCS method, values of
monthly rainfall and monthly ET derived from the SWBM simulations were
used as input. To derive ER estimates using the Hershfield method, values
of seasonal rainfall and seasonal ET derived from the SWBM simulations
were used as input.
Two measures of effective rainfall were used in comparisons of the SWBM
and the USDA-SCS methods. The first is the mean annual monthly ER amount.
The SWBM estimate of mean annual monthly ER was calculated by aver-
aging the SWBM monthly ER results over 50 years and 22 stations for each
month. The USDA-SCS estimates of mean annual monthly ER were deter-
mined using the mean annual monthly rainfall and mean annual monthly ET
from the SWBM calculations as input.
The second measure of effective rainfall is the monthly effective rainfall.
The monthly ER values calculated by the SWBM for the 50 years and 22
stations contain the variations in ER resulting from event frequency and cli-
mate. The USDA-SCS method does not account explicitly for event fre-
quency nor for climatic variations due to location. To test the adequacy of
the USDA-SCS method to account for event frequency and location depen-
dence, the USDA-SCS method was applied with the monthly rainfall and
monthly ET computed with the SWBM as input. The computed values from
the SWBM yielded 50 annual monthly values for each of the 22 stations for
the months of April-October. Thus, there were 1,100 data values for each
of the seven months considered in the analysis. The SWBM ER predictions
185

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 used in the comparison included both the unmodified predictions and those
predictions modified using Eq. 3.
Two measures of effective rainfall were used in comparison of the SWBM
and Hershfield methods. Both measures are for growing season effective
rainfall. The growing season was assumed to begin on April 1 and end Oc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tober 31. The first measure is referred to as the mean annual seasonal ef-
fective rainfall. This measure is the average of seasonal ER over all 50 years
and 22 stations. The second measure was calculated by averaging the sea-
sonal effective rainfall over all 50 years for each of the 22 stations, and will
be referred to as the station average mean annual growing season ER. This
second measure provided an assessment of the sensitivity of mean annual
seasonal ER to mean annual seasonal rainfall.
To calculate the mean annual growing season ER with the Hershfield method,
the mean annual growing season rainfall and ET calculated by the SWBM
were used as input to the Hershfield nomographs. To calculate the station
average mean annual growing season effective rainfall with the Hershfield
method, the SWBM estimates of station average mean annual rainfall and
ET were used as input to the Hershfield nomographs.
The USDA-SCS method was also used to derive estimates of growing
season effective rainfall. The USDA-SCS estimate of seasonal effective rain-
fall was calculated by summing the seven USDA-SCS estimates of monthly
effective rainfall in any given year for each location. The USDA-SCS es-
timate of mean annual growing season effective rainfall was derived by av-
eraging the USDA-SCS estimate of seasonal effective rainfall over the 50
years and 22 stations. The USDA-SCS estimate of station average mean
annual growing season effective rainfall was then derived by averaging the
USDA-SCS estimate of seasonal effective rainfall over the 50 years for each
station.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The mean annual monthly rainfall, mean annual monthly ET, and the mean
annual monthly effective rainfall calculated by the SWBM and estimated by
the USDA-SCS method are presented as histograms in Fig. 1 for the well-
drained soil and in Fig. 2 for the poorly drained soil. Under the conditions
assumed in the analysis it is seen that for both soil conditions the mean
annual monthly ER is a substantial part of mean annual monthly rainfall.
From Fig. 1 it can be seen that for the months of April, May, September,
and October the mean annual monthly ER, as estimated by the SWBM model,
exceeds the USDA-SCS estimates and the mean annual monthly ET. This
means that rainfall from a given month might be effective in the next month.
In essence, it is carryover soil water. Application of Eq. 3 to the £7? pre-
dictions for the months of April, May, September, and October results (not
shown) in fair agreement between the SWBM and the USDA-SCS estimates.
For the months of June, July, and August the SWBM estimates of mean
annual monthly ER exceed the results given by the USDA-SCS method but
are less than the mean annual monthly ET.
For the poorly drained soil, the USDA-SCS estimates of mean annual
monthly ER exceed the SWBM estimates for all the months as seen in Fig.
2. The USDA-SCS estimates are significantly higher than the SWBM esti-
mates. After application of Eq. 3 to the SWBM estimates, there is no change
186

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 vmm RAIN
IASV\M ET
P777J ER-SWBM
frSSH ER-SCS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT

FIG. 1. Comparison of SWBM and USDA-SCS Predictions of Mean Annual Monthly

Effective Rainfall. SWBM Predictions Were Derived for Case of Well-Drained Soil
{CN = 42)

Ezza RAIN
KW?I ET
Ea ER-SWBM
^ ER-SCS

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT

FIG. 2. Comparison of SWBM and USDA-SCS Predictions of Mean Annual Monthly

Effective Rainfall. SWBM Predictions Were Derived for Case of Poorly Drained Soil
(CN = 90)

in the SWBM estimates of mean annual monthly effective rainfall. The es-
timates of mean annual effective rainfall did not change since these values
were all less, than the corresponding mean annual monthly ET.
Monthly ER will depend on the weather conditions that prevail in a given
year as well as on the climatic characteristics of a given location. Due to
this dependence, it was considered necessary to examine the versatility of
the USDA-SCS method in estimating monthly ER for each of the seven months
in the 50-year sequences for each of the 22 geographical locations.
Comparisons of the SWBM and the USDA-SCS monthly effective rainfall
estimates for the months of June-August are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 for
the well-drained soil condition and in Fig. 5 for the poorly drained soil con-
dition. There are 1,100 data points on the plot for each month. The results
in Fig. 3 are for the unmodified SWBM predictions and the results in Fig.
4 are for the SWBM predictions modified with Eq. 3. The results in Fig. 5
are for both the unmodified and modified SWBM predictions, because for

187

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

jr
1 2 3
SOS (102 mm)
July

"0 1 2 3
SCS (102 mm)
October

FIG. 3. Comparison of SWBM and USDA-SCS Predictions of Monthly Effective

Rainfall. SWBM Predictions Were Derived for Case of Well-Drained Soil (CN = 42).
SWBM Predictions Are Not Limited by Monthly ET

the poorly drained soil condition there was no difference between the two
predictions.
As seen in Fig. 3, the USDA-SCS estimates of monthly effective rainfall
fall below the SWBM predictions. The USDA-SCS estimates are closest to
the SWBM predictions for small monthly rainfall amounts, but diverge from
the SWBM predictions as monthly rainfall increases. The maximum differ-
ence between the unmodified SWBM predictions and the USDA-SCS esti-
mates for the seven months shown was found to be 170 mm in August.
The modification of the SWBM predictions with Eq. 3 produced a some-
what better agreement with the USDA-SCS estimates, as seen in Fig. 4. The
maximum difference between the modified SWBM predictions and the USDA-
SCS estimates for the seven months shown was found to be 46 mm in July.
In contrast to these results for the well-drained soil condition, the results
for the poorly drained soil condition shown in Fig. 5 illustrate that the SWBM
188

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 / -

-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mr
r i i i >
1 2 3
SCS(10 2 mm)
June

1 2 3
SCS (10 2 mm)
October

FIG. 4. Comparison of SWBM and USDA-SCS Predictions of Monthly Effective

Rainfall. SWBM Predictions Were Derived for Case of Well-Drained Soil (CN = 42).
Upper Limit of SWBM Predictions Is Monthly ET Values

predictions are generally less than the USDA-SCS estimates. The maximum
difference between the SWBM predictions and the USDA-SCS estimates was
found to be - 8 0 mm in July.
The mean annual growing season effective rainfall estimates using the
SWBM, USDA-SCS, and the Hershfield methods are presented in Table 2.
The USDA-SCS and Hershfield estimates are close as expected. Two pre-
dictions by the SWBM are given in the table. The first does not consider
constraints on the ER estimate, whereas the second considers the constraint
given by Eq. 3. It is seen that the SWBM predictions exceed the USDA-
SCS estimates for the well-drained soil condition, whereas for the poorly
drained soil condition the SWBM predictions are less than the USDA-SCS
estimates. These comparisons are consistent with the comparisons presented
earlier for the mean annual monthly ER estimates.
The dependency of mean annual seasonal effective rainfall on mean annual
189

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
SOS (10 2 mm) SCS(10 2 mm) SCS (10 2 mm)
April May June

1 2 0 1 2
SOS (10 2 mm) SOS (102 mm) SCS (10 mm)
July August September

FIG. 5. Comparison of SWBM and USDA-SCS Predictions of Monthly Effective

Rainfall. The SWBM Predictions Were Derived for Case of Poorly Drained Soil (CN
= 90). Graphs Apply to Unmodified and Modified SWBM ER Predictions

TABLE 2. Seasonal Effective Rainfall

Seasonal Effective Rainfall (mm)
Soil type SWBM" SWBM" SCS Hershfield
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
Well-drained soil (CN = 42) 429 330 309 322
Poorly drained soil (CN = 90) 163 163 308 322
"Unmodified.
'Modified by constraining estimates with Eq. 3,

190

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 o SWBM (CN-42)
+ SWBM (CN-90)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rainfall (mm)

FIG. 6. Comparison of SWBM, USDA-SCS, and Hershfield Predictions of Station

Average Mean Annual Growing Season Effective Rainfall

seasonal rainfall is illustrated in Fig. 6. Here, one prediction of mean annual

seasonal ER is given for each of the 22 stations. As defined previously, this
mean annual growing season value is referred to as station average seasonal
ER. Estimates presented are for the SWBM (well-drained soil and poorly
drained soil), the USDA-SCS method, and the Hershfield method. Both the
unmodified and the modified (by Eq. 3) SWBM estimates are given for the
well-drained soil. The unmodified and modified SWBM estimates for the
poorly drained soil are essentially identical and so only one plot is given for
that soil condition.
In Fig. 6 the USDA-SCS estimates and the Hershfield estimates are seen
to be in close agreement. This agreement is to be expected since both meth-
ods were derived from the same data sets and with a water balance modeling
procedure assuming a well-drained soil condition.
The SWBM predictions are seen to be sensitive to soil drainage condition.
For the well-drained condition, the unmodified SWBM predictions of sea-
sonal ER are well above the USDA-SCS estimates. With correction of the
SWBM predictions for the well-drained soil condition, the SWBM predic-
tions are in fairly good agreement with the USDA-SCS estimates. For the
poorly drained soil condition, the unmodified SWBM predictions fall well
below the USDA-SCS and Hershfield estimates. This finding is a verifica-
tion of an important conclusion made by Dastane (1974). His conclusion
was that the USDA-SCS method is applicable to areas having soils with
characteristically high water intake rates relative to the characteristic rainfall
intensity.
The USDA-SCS method and the nomograph developed by Hershfield (1964)
ignore soil type. It can be further noted from Table 2 that seasonal ER, as
predicted by the USDA-SCS and Hershfield methods, are in close agree-
ment. This result is expected as USDA-SCS method and the Hershfield nom-
ograph use identical 22 locations and 50 years of weather data for estimating
ER.

191

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 On a conceptual basis the discrepancies in results of ER as estimated by
SWBM and USDA-SCS methods could be attributed to the following:

1. The USDA-SCS method is not sensitive to soil type.

2. The USDA-SCS method does not directly account for carryover soil water.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3. The USDA-SCS method does not account explicitly for event frequency
nor for location dependent climatic characteristics.
Similar reasons can be outlined for the dissimilar mean annual seasonal
ER results obtained by the SWBM method and the Hershfield nomograph.
Also, the soil water balance computations used for developing the Hershfield
nomograph used a constant daily ET value (Hershfield 1964). The method
thus ignores the dynamic nature of climatic conditions, which have a direct
influence on daily crop water use. Using constant daily ET values can lead
to either overestimation or underestimation of ER, depending on the period
of growing season.
As new restrictions on the use of quality water resources develop, in the
future it will become increasingly important to more accurately estimate the
design ER for situations specific to frequency of event and to location. In
addition, the operation of irrigation systems will require the real-time esti-
mation of ER on different time scales including weekly, monthly, and sea-
sonal. To provide estimates for these quantities it will be necessary to de-
velop new prediction tools. Established ER estimating methods including the
USDA-SCS method and the Hershfield method will not be sufficient.
To meet future requirements of effective rainfall estimation, the new pre-
diction tools should be based on the use of computers that perform the many
calculations involved in solving the equation for the water balance of an
irrigated field. With the ready availability of microcomputers, there is little
excuse to limit oneself to the employment of charts and tables alone.
In the formulation of the new prediction tools, the mathematical repre-
sentation of the water balance components can range widely in complexity.
Of course, the simplest representation will facilitate faster computation and
a minimum of data input. A more complex representation may provide more
accurate results, but this will only occur when an extra effort is made to
provide the model with high-quality data for an expanded input data set.
The computer-based water balance model is only one part of the overall
strategy for prediction of effective rainfall. In addition, the analyst needs to
make maximum use of available field experiences and observations to tem-
per simulated results.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A soil water balance model (SWBM) for estimating effective rainfall is

applied in evaluating the accuracy of two established effective rainfall es-
timation methods. The two methods evaluated are the USDA-SCS method
("Irrigation" 1967) and the Hershfield (1964) method.
The predictions of mean annual monthly ER by the USDA-SCS method
and the SWBM are in fairly good agreement for well-drained soil conditions.
However, the USDA-SCS method overpredicts ER for the case of poorly
drained soils when compared to the SWBM method. This result is in agree-
ment with the comments made by Dastane (1974) regarding the conditions

192

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.

 for applicability of the USDA-SCS method. The conditions stated by Das-
tane are that the USDA-SCS method is applicable to areas having soils with
characteristic intake rates that are high relative to the characteristic intensity
of local rainfall. Estimates of seasonal ER by the Hershfield method and the
USDA-SCS method are well above those given by the SWBM for poorly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 01/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

drained soils, but estimates by these two methods are nearly the same as
those from the SWBM for well-drained soil conditions.
When using the USDA-SCS method to estimate monthly ER for various
frequency events it is found that there are large discrepancies between the
USDA-SCS estimate and the SWBM prediction. This is because the USDA-
SCS method was not developed to specifically handle frequencies other than
that for the mean annual condition.
Both USDA-SCS and Hershfield methods average soil type, climatic con-
ditions, and soil water storage to estimate ER. This averaging limits the
usefulness of these methods for irrigation planning for specific locations.
New effective rainfall prediction tools are needed to more closely simulate
the dynamic nature of soil water and weather conditions in the field. The
SWBM presented in this paper is an example of a relatively simple model
that will fill this need for new tools. Since the model is physically based
and accounts for the dynamic nature of soil water and weather changes on
a daily basis it should more accurately represent actual field conditions than
either the USDA-SCS or Hershfield methods.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

de Jong, R., and Cameron, D. R. (1979). "Computer simulation model for predicting
soil water content profiles." Soil Sci., 128(1), 41-48.
Dastane, N. G. (1974). "Effective rainfall in irrigated agriculture." Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No, 25, Food and Agr. Organization, United Nations, New York,
N.Y.
Hershfield, D. M. (1964). "Effective rainfall and irrigation water requirements." J.
oflrr. and Drain. Div., ASCE, 90(2), 33-47.
"Irrigation water requirements." (1967). Tech. Release No. 21, United States Dept.
of Agr., Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Knisel, W. G., ed. (1980). "CREAMS. A field-scale model for chemicals, runoff,
and erosion from agricultural management systems." Conservation Res. Report
No. 26, U.S. Dept. of Agric, Washington, D.C.
Nieber, J. L., and Patwardhan, A. S. (1988). "Estimation of effective rainfall."
Research project completion report, Contract No. USDI-5-CR-81-07420, U.S. Dept.
of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Feb., Denver, Colo.
Pair, C. H., et al. (1975). Sprinkler irrigation. Fourth Ed., The Sprink. Irrig. Assoc,
Silver Spring, Md.
Richardson, C. W., and Wright, C. A. (1984). "WGEN: A model for generating
daily weather variables." ARS-8, U.S. Dept. of Agr., Agric. Res. Service, Belts-
ville, Md.
Sands, G. R., Moore, I. D., and Roberts, C. R. (1982). "Supplemental irrigation
of horticultural crops in humid regions." Water Resour. Bulletin, 18(5), 831-839.
Saxton, K. E., Johnson, H. P., and Shaw, R. H. (1974). "Modeling evapotrans-
piration and soil moisture." Trans, of the American Society of Agric. Engrs., 17(4),
American Soc. of Agric. Engrs., 618-621.
Smith, R. E., and Williams, J. R. (1980). "Simulation of the surface water hy-
drology." CREAMS. A field-scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from
agricultural management systems, Chapter 2, Knisel, W. G., ed., 13-35.
Williams, J. R., Nicks, A. D., and Arnold, J. G. (1985). "Simulator for water re-
sources in rural basins," / . ofHydr. Engrg., ASCE, 111(6), 970-986.

193

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1990.116:182-193.