See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257689975

Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models

Article in Journal of Geographical Sciences · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s11442-013-1015-9

CITATIONS READS

138 3,139

6 authors, including:

Lingling Zhao Jun Xia

Guangdong Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences
10 PUBLICATIONS 235 CITATIONS 172 PUBLICATIONS 3,816 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chong-Yu Xu Zhonggen Wang

University of Oslo Chinese Academy of Sciences
448 PUBLICATIONS 16,445 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 672 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Several post-doc positions in hydrology and related field View project

Copulas in Hydrology and Water Resources View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leszek Sobkowiak on 13 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Geogr. Sci. 2013, 23(2): 359-369
DOI: 10.1007/s11442-013-1015-9

© 2013 Science Press Springer-Verlag

Evapotranspiration estimation methods in

hydrological models
ZHAO Lingling1,2, *XIA Jun1, XU Chong-Yu3, WANG Zhonggen1,
SOBKOWIAK Leszek4
1. Key Laboratory of Water Cycle & Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and
Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
2. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3. Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;
4. Department of Hydrology and Water Management, Institute of Physical Geography and Environmental
Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland

Abstract: Actual evapotranspiration is a key process of hydrological cycle and a sole term that
links land surface water balance and land surface energy balance. Evapotranspiration plays a
key role in simulating hydrological effect of climate change, and a review of evapotranspira-
tion estimation methods in hydrological models is of vital importance. This paper firstly
summarizes the evapotranspiration estimation methods applied in hydrological models and
then classifies them into the integrated converting methods and the classification gathering
methods by their mechanism. Integrated converting methods are usually used in hydrological
models and two differences exist among them: one is in the potential evaporation estimation
methods, while the other in the function for defining relationship between potential evapora-
tion and actual evapotranspiration. Due to the higher information requirements of the Pen-
man-Monteith method and the existing data uncertainty, simplified empirical methods for
calculating potential and actual evapotranspiration are widely used in hydrological models.
Different evapotranspiration calculation methods are used depending on the complexity of the
hydrological model, and importance and difficulty in the selection of the most suitable
evapotranspiration methods is discussed. Finally, this paper points out the prospective de-
velopment trends of the evapotranspiration estimating methods in hydrological modeling.
Keywords: hydrological model; actual evaporation; potential evaporation; function of soil moisture

1 Introduction
Evapotranspiration is a key process of water balance and also an important element of en-
ergy balance. Its precise estimation is not only of vital importance for the study of climate
change and evaluation of water resources, but also has much application value in crop water

Received: 2012-11-05 Accepted: 2012-12-10

Foundation: CAS-CSIRO Cooperative Research Program No.CJHZ1223; National Basic Research Program of China
No.2010CB428406
Author: Zhao Lingling, Ph.D, specialized in hydrological cycle simulation. E-mail: linglingzhao@foxmail.com
*
Corresponding author: Xia Jun, Professor, President of IWRA, E-mail: xiaj@igsnrr.ac.cn

www.geogsci.com springerlink.com/content/1009-637X
360 Journal of Geographical Sciences

requirement management, drought forecasting and monitoring, effective water resources

development and utilization etc. Land evapotranspiration process is invisible and difficult to
measure, and needs to be determined by measurement and estimation (Lu et al., 2010). In
1694 E. Halley (Halley, 1694) for the first time applied evaporator to determine water sur-
face evaporation, initiating measurements of the basin evaporation. J. Dalton integrated the
influence of wind, air temperature and humidity to evapotranspiration and proposed the
Dalton’s Law of Evaporation in 1802 (Dalton, 1802), which provided clear physical mean-
ing to the basin evaporation theory.
Evaporation measurement methods include the hydrological method, micro-meteorolo-
gical method, plant physiology law-based method and scintillometer method. The hydro-
logical method is based on the principle of water balance to determine the whole basin or
sub-basin evapotranspiration. In this method evapotranspiration is measured either in a large
time scale, usually in years (water balance method) or measured in a small regional scale,
cell scale or point scale (lysimeter method, water flux method). The micro-meteorological
method is based on the energy balance equation or aerodynamic equations to determine
evapotranspiration in a selected part of the analyzed area. However, assumptions of the mi-
cro-meteorological method are difficult to achieve in reality, causing large errors (Bowen
ratio energy balance method, aerodynamic method), in addition, it requires complex instru-
ment manufacturing, causing maintenance difficulties and high costs. All these problems
make this method difficult to be popularized. The plant physiology law-based methods
through the determination of the plants’ water consumption determine their transpiration in
the basin, so its representativeness of the watershed is poor. So is the case of the scintillom-
eter method (Zuo et al., 1988).
There are many methods to estimate evapotranspiration, from those taking into account
evaporation from water surface to a variety of potential evapotranspiration and actual
evapotranspiration estimations, but most of them just consider evapotranspiration from a
single underlying surface, such as water, bare soil, and vegetation at the same time neglect-
ing water balance. These methods regard evapotranspiration not as an important process of
the hydrological cycle, but as a static quantity to estimate. Recent development of remote
sensing methods can estimate the basin scale evapotranspiration, but due to the technologi-
cal limitations, that estimation is difficult to meet the time scale requirements, usually being
instantaneous, besides it is susceptible to external conditions, so its accuracy is not high.
Estimations of actual evapotranspiration based on hydrological models consider influence
of water and energy, and can be calculated in different spatial and temporal scales, so results
of such estimations are able to meet the demand of water resources assessment and water
resources management (Xu et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2003). There are many kinds of
evapotranspiration estimation methods based on existing hydrological models, and their data
input requirements are different. At the same time, the accuracy of their output results is
rarely compared. In the following sections evapotranspiration estimation modules based on
the existing hydrological models are reviewed, then their differences are analyzed to be
classified in accordance with their estimation principles. Finally, the prospective develop-
ment trends of evapotranspiration estimation methods based on hydrological models are
forecasted.
ZHAO Lingling et al.: Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models 361

2 Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models

There are two groups of evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models: one
first estimates separately water surface evaporation, soil evaporation and vegetable transpi-
ration, and then integrates them to get the basin evapotranspiration depending on the land
use pattern. The other one first estimates potential evapotranspiration (ETp) and then con-
verts it into actual evapotranspiration (ETa) applying the Soil Moisture Extraction Function.
In this paper the first type methods are called the classification gathering methods, while the
second – the integrated converting methods.
Table 1 lists some evapotranspiration estimation methods usually used in hydrological
models. It can be clearly seen that lumped conceptual models, system models and distributed
models commonly apply the integrated converting methods, while physically based hydro-
logical models usually use the classification gathering methods to estimate basin evapotran-
spiration.

Table 1 Selected evapotranspiration estimation methods applied in Hydrological Models (HM)

Type Name of HM Kind of input ETp
Xin’anjiang (Zhao, 1984) Input
SWMM (Xu, 2009) Evapotranspiration rate
HSPF (Xu, 2009) Input
PRMS Jensen-Haise

Integrated Con- HBV (Gardelin, 1997) Penman; Priestley-Taylor

verting Methods TOPMODEL (Beven et al., 1984) Water surface ETp
DTVGM (Xia et al., 2005a; 2005b) Hargreaves; Water surface ETp
WASMOD (Sigh et al., 2002) Input
HIMS (Liu et al., 2006) Hargreaves; Water surface ETp
Penman-Monteith; Priestley-Taylor;
SWAT (Arnold et al., 1998)
Water surface ETp
TOPKAPI (Liu, 2002) Thornthwaite
PDTANK (Xu, 2009) Penman-Monteith
SHE (Abbott et al., 1986a; 1986b) Penman-Monteith

Classification VIC (Liang et al., 1994) Penman-Monteith

Gathering Methods VIP (Mo et al., 2004) Penman-Monteith
WEP (Jia et al., 2001) Penman-Monteith

3 Differences among integrated converting methods

The integrated converting methods have following advantages in estimating evapotran-
spiration: they are easy to use, require few input variables and have strong adaptive ability.
So they are widely used in hydrological models. As to the hydrological models, we found
two differences among them: one is different method of estimation of potential evapotran-
spiration, usually applied by the researchers depending on the data availability; the other is
different soil moisture extraction function, which complexity differs significantly despite the
same basic format. These two differences are discussed in the following parts.
362 Journal of Geographical Sciences

3.1 Soil moisture extraction function

In conceptual hydrological models actual evapotranspiration is the function of potential

evapotranspiration and water availability in soil. The degree of soil humidity is expressed by
actual soil moisture divided by field capacity soil moisture.
When actual soil moisture content is larger than evapotranspiration-limited soil moisture
content, evapotranspiration is just limited by climate conditions and water will evaporate at
the largest rate. With decreasing soil moisture, evapotranspiration rate also decreases until
actual soil moisture content is smaller than withering soil moisture content, or in other words
soil water reaches the largest deficit. At that time, evapotranspiration is just limited by the
water supply conditions, and evapotranspiration rate trends to zero. The basic formula of the
soil moisture extraction function is (1):
⎛ SMT ⎞
ETa = ETp ⎜ ⎟ (1)
⎝ SMC ⎠
where SMT is actual soil moisture; SMC is field capacity soil moisture.
Dyck (1985), Mintz and Walker (1993) summarized the soil moisture extraction functions
in commonly used hydrological models; these functions are shown in Table 2. The ratios of
actual evapotranspiration and potential evapotranspiration change with water availability in
soil. Their relationship is demonstrated in Figure 1a; its format is related to the soil type and
the Leaf Area Index (LAI), which has close relationship with the growth stage of vegetables,
but is hard to define (Mintz et al., 1993). Figure 1b shows several curves of soil moisture
extraction functions drawn according to equations (7) –(12) given in Table 2.

3.2 Potential evapotranspiration estimation methods

Potential evapotranspiration is an important input in hydrological cycle simulations.

There are many kinds of potential evapotranspiration estimation methods; however, the use
of different methods to estimate potential evapotranspiration influences the simulation ac-
curacy of a given hydrological model. In 1997 Gardelin and Lindstrom analyzed the effect
of different potential evapotranspiration calculation methods on the simulation accuracy of
the HBV model. They found that the temperature-corrected Penman method improved the
simulation accuracy; nevertheless, with the Priestley-Taylor method the obtained results
were better. Consequently, the best method was the Priestley-Taylor method, which im-
proved the negative potential evapotranspiration in winter by considering the soil heat flux.
The potential evapotranspiration estimation methods can be divided into the energy-based,
temperature-based and mass transfer-based methods, depending on their mechanisms. The
energy based method applies the energy balance concept to estimate potential evapotranspi-
ration. In 2000 Xu and Singh compared 8 energy-based methods, including those described
by Turc (1961), Makkink (1957), Jensen and Haise (1963), Hargreaves (1975), Doorenbos
and Pruitt (1977), McGuinness and Bordne (1972), Abtew (1996) and Priestley and Taylor
(1972). He found that: applying the Penman-Monteith method, Makkink, Priestley and Tay-
lor and Abtew got better results than the other methods. Under limited climate data condi-
tions many researchers proposed some temperature-based methods. In 2001 Xu et al. ana-
lyzed seven types of temperature-based methods; the results show that the Blaney-Criddle
method, the Hargreaves method and the Thornthwaite method give better simulation results
ZHAO Lingling et al.: Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models 363

Table 2 Examples of relationships between actual and potential evaporation

Name Function Scale
1 − exp(− γSMT)
Minhas et al. (1974) (2) Daily
1 − 2 exp ( − γSMC ) + exp(γSMT)
−1
⎡ ⎛ SMT ⎞ b.k ⎤
⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (3)
Norero (1969) ⎢⎣ ⎝ SMC ⎠ ⎥⎦ Daily
−0.62
k = 2.69exp(−0.09ETp) (4)
n ⎛ SMTj,i−1 ⎞
Baier, Robertson (1966) ∑ kj ⎜
⎜ SMC ⎟⎟ j
Z (5) Daily
j=1 ⎝ j ⎠

SMTi−1
Koitzsch and Golf (1983) (6) Daily
(1 − 0.533M i )SMC
RAT 2 / (RAT 2 + (1 − RAT )
2
(7)
2RAT ⎣⎡1 / (1 + RAT)
2 RAT
⎦⎤ (8)
Roberts 2RAT ⎣⎡1 / (1 + RAT) RAT
⎦⎤ (9) Daily
1/2 1/2
RAT (RAT -RAT) (10)
RAT 2 (11)
RAT (12)

Xu et al. (1996,1998)
( (
min ETp 1 − α[
SMT/max (ETp,1]
) ,SMT ) (13) Daily or monthly
min( SMT (1 − e − αETp
) , ETp)
SMT
HBV (14) Daily or monthly
LP SMC
Renger et al. (1974) 0.2 + 2RAT − 1.2RAT 2 (15) 5-day
Budyko and Zubenko (1961) RAT (16) Monthly
1/ns
⎡ ⎤
Glugla (1980) ⎢1 − d(ETR S ) / d(PS + Δ SMTS ) ⎥ (17) Monthly
⎣ ⎦
1/n
⎡ ⎤
Bagrov (1953) ⎢1 − (d ETR/ d P ⎥ (18) Long term
⎣ ⎦
mV
Eagleson (1978) [(1 − M ] βS + MK v (19) Long term
α
Note: RAT=SMT/SMC, SMT is actual soil moisture, SMC is field capacity soil moisture, SMT j, i–1 is the previous
day j-layer soil moisture, Zj is available soil moisture considering root suction when actual evapotranspiration is
smaller than potential evapotranspiration, Kj is available soil moisture in j-layer, r is free coefficient. B is constant
soil coefficient; M is vegetable canopy density.

than the other ones. The mass transfer-based method is one of the oldest one, which esti-
mates free water surface potential evaporation and mainly considers the effect of air pressure
deficit and wind speed (Singh et al., 1997). In 1802 Dalton proposed the first method of es-
timation of potential evaporation, while in 1948 Penman introduced his method based on the
mass transfer principles.

4 Methods’ sensitivity and development trends

4.1 Sensitivity of potential evapotranspiration estimation methods

There are numerous methods to estimate potential evapotranspiration. Among them the
364 Journal of Geographical Sciences

Figure 1 Nonlinear relationships between Eta and ETp

Penman-Monteith method is widely used in evaluating the influence of climate change on

potential evapotranspiration, in the sensitivity analysis of climate (Xie, 2007; Sun et al.,
2009; Zhang et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011) and in simulation
of hydrological cycle, because of its physically-based mechanism. However, studies on the
sensitivity of the hydrological cycle simulation to the potential evapotranspiration show that
the Penman-Monteith method is not the best one to estimate potential evapotranspiration in
such simulations. In 1972 Parmele et al. analyzed the effect of error in potential evapotran-
spiration on the efficiency of hydrological models by testing 3 models in 9 watersheds. The
obtained results suggest that the effect of potential evapotranspiration to the runoff modeling
can be neglected when the error of potential evapotranspiration is smaller than 20%. Paturel
et al. (1995) and Nandakumar et al. (1997) found that the sensitivity to the precipitation er-
ror was smaller than the error of potential evapotranspiration. Andersson et al. (1992) com-
pared the sensitivity of the HBV model to 7 potential evapotranspiration methods and found
that the temperature-based method slightly improved the accuracy of hydrological model,
however, the mean-series Penman-Monteith method gets better accuracy than the
time-varying one. Andreassian et al. (2004) also got the same results as Andersson. In 2005
Qudin et al. analyzed the sensitivity of 4 lumped hydrological models to 27 potential
evapotranspiration methods in 308 basins of the world. The results suggest that the en-
ergy-based and temperature-based methods of the potential evapotranspiration estimation
can ensure better efficiency of the hydrological model than the Penman-Monteith method. In
2007 Kannan et al. analyzed the sensitivity of the SWAT-2000 model to the tempera-
ture-based Hargreaves method and the Penman-Monteith method, respectively. The results
show that application of the Hargreaves method results in better runoff modeling compared
with the Penman-Monteith method.
As to the reasons of better hydrological cycle simulations resulting from simplified em-
pirical formulas than from the Penman-Monteith method for the long-term averages, re-
searchers believe that the Penman-Monteith method requires many data, in which many pa-
rameters are difficult to obtain. Many conceptual hydrological models are too sensitive to
the data input of the Penman-Monteith method, what makes it not suitable for the use in hy-
drological models (Lu et al., 2010). Some scientists (Oudin et al., 2005; Oudin et al., 2006)
ZHAO Lingling et al.: Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models 365

Table 3 Some methods for potential evaporation estimating

Climate type
Type Method Equation
underlaying surface
T
ET = 0.013 ( R s + 50 ) RH > 50 (20)
T + 15
Turc (1961) 50 − RH ⎞ Humid; grassland
( R s + 50 ) ⎛⎜1 +
T
ET = 0.013 ⎟ RH < 50
T + 15 ⎝ 70 ⎠
(1)
Δ Rs
Makkink ET = α − β (2)
Δ+γ λ Humid; grassland
(1957)
α＝0.61,β＝0.12
Rs
Jensen-Haise ET = C t (T − Tx ) (3) Humid and semi-humid;
λ
Energy (1963) Ct=0.025; Tx = –3
grassland
based
Rs
method Hargreaves ET = 0.0135(T + 17.8) (4) Arid and semi arid; grassland
(1975) λ
⎛ Δ Rs ⎞
Doorenbos-Pruitt ET = α ⎜ ⎟ + b (5)
(1977) ⎝Δ+γ λ ⎠ Humid; grassland
b = 0.03
R
ET = α s (6)
Abtew (1996) λ Humid; wetland
α＝0.53
Δ Rn
Priestley-Taylor ET = α
Δ + γ λ (7) Humid; wet surface
(1972)
α＝1.26
dN
ET = ET '
Thomthwaite 360
α 1.51 (8) Humid; valley
(1948) ⎛ Ta ⎞
12
ET ' = C ⎛⎜
10Ta ⎞
⎟ i=⎜ ⎟ =∑j
⎝ I ⎠ ⎝ 5 ⎠ j=1

500Tm
+ 15(Ta − Td )
Tem- Linacre (1977) ET = 100 − A (9) No limitation; lake surface
perature (80 − Ta )
based Tm = T + 0.006h
method
Kharrufa (1985) ET = 0.34ρTa1.3 (10) Arid; vegetation
Blaney-Criddle ET = kρ(0.46T + 8.13) (11) Arid and semi arid; vegetation
(1959)
ET = 0.55D Pt 2

Hamon (1961) 4.95e（0.062Ta） (12) No limitation; vegetation

Pt =
100
Mass Rohwer (1962) ET＝0.44 (1 + 0.27U 2 ) (es − ea ) (13) Arid and semi arid; free water
transfer surface
method Penman (1948) ET＝0.35 (1 + 0.98 / 100U 2 ) (es − ea ) (14) Humid; free water surface
900
Com-
Penman-Monteith 0.408Δ ( Rn − G ) + γ U 2 (es − ea ) No limitation; reference vege-
posite
ET =
( Ta + 273) (15)
(Allen et al., 1998) tation
method Δ + γ(1 + 0.34U 2 )
Note: ET is potential evapotranspiration (mm/ d); Rs is short wave radiation (MJ / (m2·d)); Rn is net radiation (MJ
/ (m2·d)); Ta is mean air temperature (℃); RH is relative humidity; G is soil flux (MJ / (m2·d));γ is temperature
constant (kPa/℃); U2 is wind speed at 2 m height (m/s); es is saturation vapor pressure at Ta (kPa); ea is vapor
pressure at Ta (kPa);Δis slope of saturation vapor pressure curve (kPa/℃); Ct is temperature constant; in equation
(25) the adjustment factor α = 1.066 − 0.13 × 10−2 RH + 0.45U 2 − 0.2 × 10−3 RH × U 2 − 0.315 × 10−4 RH 2 − 0.11× 10−2 U 2 2;
k is monthly consumptive use coefficient; p is percentage of total daytime hours for the period used (daily or
monthly) out of total daytime hours of the year (365×12); Td is dew point temperature (℃); h is elevation (m); A
is the latitude in degree; D is day time (hours); Pt is saturated water vapor density term.
366 Journal of Geographical Sciences

think that the input of the hydrological model and the parameter uncertainty make the model
has a certain degree of fault tolerance, which consequently does not enable to take advantage
of the Penman-Monteith method.
We think that most conceptual hydrological models describing hydrological processes
cannot be compatible with the level of detailed evapotranspiration process in the Pen-
man-Monteith method. Existing soil water function can not accurately estimate soil moisture,
so the advantages of the Penman-Monteith method are hampered by less accurate soil mois-
ture extraction functions. On the other hand, the Penman-Monteith method requires detailed
weather information, but in reality it is often difficult to find relevant observation data, in
order to meet the input needs through a variety of empirical formula transformations, which
will inevitably lead to numerous uncertainties. In this situation, the advantages of the less
data requirements of simplified empirical formulas along with simplified calculation proc-
esses, while achieving the required level of accuracy are indisputable.

4.2 Development trends

Hydrological model simulates interlinkages between the elements of the water cycle and
simplifies its complexity. On the one hand, hydrological models are used to study the laws
of the hydrological cycle in nature. For this reason, through a variety of experiments and
mathematical equations, an attempt to approximate mechanisms of the real hydrological
processes and reflect them more accurately, more complex models, such as the SHE model,
are constructed. On the other hand, models are built to solve an existing, rooted in specific
conditions problem, in order to find convenient and efficient solution, usually reducing
complexity of less important processes; such models tend to be more simple and practical.
The development trend of the evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models
is consistent with the above-mentioned development directions of these models. While the
integrated converting methods focus on the simple relationship between the changes in the
process of evapotranspiration, the classification gathering methods develop toward more
complex mechanisms, with complex equations to describe the amount of water in all kinds
of evapotranspiration and energy conversion processes. Consequently, two main trends in
the evaporation estimation methods can be pointed out: first, towards simplification of their
practical use, and second, towards their increasing complexity.

5 Discussion
Evapotranspiration plays a vital role in water balance. Water from plant interception, surface
water and soil water are consumed by evapotranspiration. According to the statistics, in hu-
mid areas evapotranspiration accounts for about 50% of the annual precipitation, while in
arid regions for about 90%. Observations of actual evapotranspiration are very difficult and
vulnerable to the influence of external factors, so indirect estimation methods are commonly
used. Estimations of actual evapotranspiration based on hydrological cycle simulations are
of great significance to the water resources adaptive management under changing environ-
ment. However, there is a wide range of evapotranspiration estimation methods based on
hydrological models. These methods are reviewed as follows:
(1) Firstly, this paper reviewed the evapotranspiration estimation methods commonly used
ZHAO Lingling et al.: Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models 367

in hydrological models. They were divided into two categories, depending on its characteris-
tics, namely the classification gathering methods and the integrated converting methods. The
former firstly estimate different kinds of evapotranspiration and then get the basin
evapotranspiration depending on the land use pattern. The latter convert potential
evapotranspiration into actual evapotranspiration according to the soil moisture content. The
differences among the integrated converting methods exist in the way of estimating potential
evapotranspiration and in soil moisture extraction functions. This paper summarizes 14
kinds of potential evapotranspiration estimation methods and 12 kinds of soil moisture ex-
traction functions.
(2) There are some uncertainties in hydrological models input, output and model structure
and the physically-based Penman-Monteith method has high data requirements. This clearly
influences the accuracy of the hydrological cycle simulations. So we need further discussion
on how to select compatible potential evapotranspiration estimating equations and soil
moisture extraction functions for different hydrological models to reduce their uncertainty.
(3) Regarding the nature of the models, this paper predicts two main directions of their
development, which is the increasing complexity of the evapotranspiration estimation
methods in hydrological model and the research-driven simplification of their practical use.

References
Andersson L, 1992. Improvement of runoff models, what way to go? Nordic Hydrology, 23(5): 315–332.
Andreassian V, Perrin C, Michel C, 2004. Impact of imperfect potential evapotranspiration knowledge on the
efficiency and parameters of watershed models. Journal of Hydrology, 286(1–4): 19–35.
Abbott M B, Bathhurst J C, Cunge J A et al., 1986. An introduction to the European Hydrological
System-Système Hydrologique Européen, SHE; 1. History and philosophy of a physically based distributed
modeling system. Journal of Hydrology, 87(1): 45–59.
Abbott M B, Bathhurst J C, Cunge J A et al., 1986. An introduction to the European Hydrological
System-Système Hydrologique Européen, SHE; 2. Structure of a physically-based distributed modeling system.
Journal of Hydrology, 87(1): 61–77.
Abtew W, 1996. Evapotranspiration measurement and modeling for three wetland systems in South Florida. Water
Resources Bulletin, 32(3): 465–473.
Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D et al., 1998, Crop evapotranspiration, Guidelines for computing crop water re-
quirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. ISBN 92-5-104219-5.
Arnold J G, Williams J R, Srinivasan R et al., 1998. Large area hydrological modeling and assessment (Part 1):
Model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(1): 73–89.
Bagrov N A, 1953. On multi-year average of evapotranspiration from land surface. Met. Gidrol., (10): 20–25.
Baier W, Robertson G W, 1966. A new versatile soil moisture budget. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 46(3):
299–315.
Beven K J, Kirkby M J, Schofield N et al., 1984. Testing a physically based flood-forecasting model
(TOPMODEL) for three UK catchments. Journal of Hydrology, 69 (1): 119–143.
Blaney H F, Criddle W D, 1950. Determining water requirements in irrigated area from climatological irrigation
data. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Tech., 96, 48 pp.
Budyko M I, Zubenok L I, 1961. The determination of evaporation from the land surface. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR
Ser. Geogr., 6(3): 3–17.
Dalton, 1802. Experimental essays on the constitution of mixed gases: On the force of steam or vapor from water
or other liquids in different temperatures, both in a Torricelli vacuum and in air; on evaporation; and on ex-
pansion of gases by heat. Manchester Literary Philosophical Society Mem. Proceedings, (5): 536–602.
Doorenbos J, Pruitt W O, 1977. Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24, Land and Wa-
368 Journal of Geographical Sciences

ter Development Division, FAO. Rome.

Dyck S, 1985. Overview on the present status of the concepts of water balance models. IAHS Publ., (148): 3–19.
Eagleson P S, 1978. Climate, soil, and vegetation: 1. Introduction to water balance dynamics. Water Resources
Research, 14(5): 705–712.
Gardelin M, Lindstrom G, 1997. Priestley-Taylor evapotranspiration in HBV-simulations. Nordic Hydrology,
28(4/5): 233–246.
Glugla G, 1980. Berechnung der realen Verdunstung im Modell JAC-A 75. In: Dyck S et al. eds., Angewandte
Hydrologie, Teil 2. 2nd edn. Verl. für Bauwesen, Berlin.
Halley E, 1694. An account of the evaporation of water, as it was experimented in Gresham Colledge in the year
1693: With some observations thereon. by Edm. Halley. Philosophical Transactions, 18: 183–190, doi:
10.1098/rstl.1694.0037.
Hamon W R, 1961. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Hydraul. Div. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., 87: 107–120.
Hargreaves G H, 1975. Moisture availability and crop production. Transactions of the American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers ASAE, 18(5): 980–984.
Jensen M.E., Haise H.R, 1963. Estimation of evapotranspiration from solar radiation. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Division, 89: 15–41.
Jia Y W, Ni G H, Yoshihisa K et al., 2001. Development of WEP model and its application in urban area. Hydro-
logical Process, 15(11): 2175–2194.
Kannan N, White S M, Worrall F et al., 2007. Sensitivity analysis and identification of the best evapotranspiration
and runoff options for hydrological modeling in SWAT-2000. Journal of Hydrology, 332(3/4): 456–466.
Kharrufa N S, 1985. Simplified equation for evapotranspiration in arid regions. Hydrologie Sonderheft, 5(1): 39–47.
Koitzsch R, Golf W, 1983. Algorithmus zur Berechnung der realen Verdunstung. Personal communication.
Li B, Li L J, Qin Y C, 2011. Sensitivity analysis of potential evapotranspiration in the Lancang River Basin. Re-
sources Science, 33(7): 1256–1263. (in Chinese)
Liang X, Lettenmaier D P, Wood E F et al., 1994. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and
energy fluxes for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(7): 14415–14428.
Linacre E T, 1977. A simple formula for estimating evaporation rates in various climates using temperature data
alone. Agricult. Meteorol., 18(6): 409–424.
Liu C M, Zhang D, 2011.Temporal and spatial change analysis of the sensitivity of potential evapotranspiration to
meteorological influencing factors in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 66(5): 579–588. (in Chinese)
Liu C M, Zheng H X, Wang Z G, 2006. Distribution Regional Hydrological Cycle Simulation. Zhengzhou: Yellow
River Conservancy Press. (in Chinese)
Liu X M, Zheng H X, Liu C M et al., 2009. Sensitivity of the potential evapotranspiration to key climatic vari-
ables in the Haihe River Basin. Resources Science, 31(9): 1470–1476. (in Chinese)
Liu Z Y, 2002. Toward a comprehensive distributed lumped rainfall runoff model: Analysis of available physically
based models and proposal of a new TOPKAPI model [D]. Bologna, Italy: The University of Bologna.
Lu G H, Wu Z Y, He H, 2010. Hydrological Cycle and Quantity Forecast. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
Makkink G F, 1957. Testing the Penman Formula by means of lysimeters. J. Instit. Water Engineers, 11(3): 277–288.
Minhas B S, Parikh K S et al., 1974. Toward the structure of a production function for wheat yields with dates
input of irrigation water. Water Resources Research, 10(3): 383–393.
Mintz Y, Walker G, 1993. Global fields of soil moisture and land surface evapotranspiration derived from ob-
served precipitation and surface air temperature. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 32(8): 1305–1334.
Mo X G, Liu S X, 2004. Simulating the water balance of the Wuding River Basin in the Loess Plateau with a
distribution eco-hydrological model. Acta Geographica Sinica, 59(3): 341–348. (in Chinese)
Nandakumar N, Mein R G, 1997. Uncertainty in rainfall-runoff model simulations and the implications for pre-
dicting the hydrologic effects of land-use change. Journal of Hydrology, 192(1–4): 211–232.
Norero A L, 1969. A formula to express evapotranspiration as a function of soil moisture and evaporative de-
mands of the atmosphere [D]. Logan, Utah, USA: Utah State University.
Oudin L, Hervieu F, Michel C et al., 2005. Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall-runoff
model? (Part 2): Towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration sensitivity analysis and identifi-
cation of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for rainfall-runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology,
ZHAO Lingling et al.: Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models 369

303(1–4): 290–306.
Oudin L, Perrin Ch, Mathevet T et al., 2006. Impact of biased and randomly corrupted inputs on the efficiency
and the parameters of watershed models. Journal of Hydrology, 320(1/2): 62–83.
Parmele L H, 1972. Errors in output of hydrologic models due to errors in input potential evapotranspiration.
Water Resources Research, 8(2): 348–359.
Paturel J E, Servat E, Vassiliadis A, 1995. Sensitivity of conceptual rainfall-runoff algorithms to errors in input
data: Case of the GR2M model. Journal of Hydrology, 168(1–4): 111–125.
Penman H L, 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. Royal Soc. London,
193(1032): 120–145.
Priestley C H B, Taylor R J, 1972. On the assessment of the surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale
parameters. Monthly Weather Review, 100(2): 81–92.
Renger M, Strebel O et al., 1974. Beurteilung bodenkundlicher, kulturtechnischer und hydrologischer Fragen mit
Hilfe von klimatischer Wasserbilanz und bodenphysikalischen Kennwerten. Z. Kulturtechniku. Flurberein, 15:
148–160.
Rohwer C, 1931. Evaporation from free water surface. USDA Tech. Null., 217: 1–96.
Singh V P, Frevert D K, 2002. Mathematical Models of Small Watershed. Hydrology and Applications. Water
Resources Publications.
Singh V P, Xu C Y, 1997. Evaluation and generalization of 13 equations for determining free water evaporation.
Hydrological Processes, 11(3): 311–323.
Sun X Z, Feng Z M, Yang Y Z, 2009. Change tendency of reference crop evapotranspiration in Xiliaohe Basin.
Resources Science, 31(3): 479–484. (in Chinese)
Thornthwaite C W, 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review, 38(1):
55–94.
Turc L, 1961. Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential evapotranspiration: a simple climatic formula
evolved up to date. Annals of Agronomy, 12(1): 13–49.
Xia J, Wang G S, Ye A Z et al., 2005. A distributed monthly water balance model for analyzing impacts of land
cover change on flow regimes. Pedosphere, 15(6): 761–767.
Xia J, Wang G S, Tan G et al., 2005. Development of distributed time-variant gain model for nonlinear hydro-
logical systems. Science in China (Series D), 48(6): 713–723.
Xie X Q, 2007.Changes of potential evaporation in northern China over the past 50 years. Journal of Natural
Resources, 22(5): 683–691. (in Chinese)
Xu C Y, Singh V P, 1998. A review on monthly water balance models for water resources investigations. Water
Resources Management, 12(1): 31–50.
Xu C Y, Singh V P, 2000. Evaluation and generalization of radiation-based methods for calculating evaporation.
Hydrological Processes, 14(2): 339–349.
Xu C Y, Seibert J, Halldin S, 1996. Regional water balance modeling in the NOPEX area: development and ap-
plication of monthly water balance models. Journal of Hydrology, 180(1): 211–236.
Xu C Y, Singh V P, 2001. Evaluation and generalization of temperature-based methods for calculating evaporation.
Hydrological Processes, 15(2): 305–319.
Xu Z X, 2009. Hydrological Models. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
Xu Z X, Li J Y, 2003. Estimating basin evapotranspiration using distributed hydrologic model. Journal of Hydro-
logical Engineering, 8(2): 74–80.
Xu Z X, Li J Y, Ito K, 2001. Development of the evaporation component for the physically-based distributed tank
model. IAHS Publ., 270: 59–62.
Zhang S H, Liu S X, Mo X G et al., 2010. Assessing the impact of climate change on reference evapotranspiration
in Aksu River Basin. Acta Geographica Sinica, 65(11): 1363–1370. (in Chinese)
Zhao R J, 1984. Regional Hydrological Simulation: Xin’anjiang Model and Shanbei Model. Beijing: China Water
Power Press. (in Chinese)
Zuo D K, Qin W H, 1988. Research development of evaporation abroad. Geographical Research, 7(1): 86–94. (in
Chinese)

View publication stats