Comparison of Different Methods of Reference Evapotrantranspiration Based on Radiation Methods in different Iran climate condition

Document Type : Research Paper


Dept of Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran


This study was conducted to compare the evaluation methods of the reference Evapotranspiration for the methods based on solar radiation with FAO Penman Monteith for different climates and the determination of the best model for each weather station and each climate in Iran. The evapotranspiration equations used in this research were Turc, modified Turc, Hargreaves, Makkink models, Priestley-Taylor, Jensen- Haise, McGuinness & Bordne, Jones & Ritchie, Irmak, Hansen, Doorenbos- Pruitt, Abtew, and tabari et all models. Meteorological data from 154 synoptic stations across the country on a daily basis was prepared from the country's Meteorological Agency for 15 years. The accuracy of the methods was evaluated using the RMSE, MBE, R and t statistics. The comparative results of this study showed that models of Hansen and modified Abtew were more applicable and Jones & Ritchie and Hargreavs had the less accuracy in arid climates. In semi-arid areas Irmak and Hansen methods had more accuracy. In Mediterranean areas Adjusted Turk and Makkink 2 were more accurate methods. In the semi- humid, humid and very humid areas the methods of Priestley-Taylor and Irmak presented more appropriate results. The methods of Jones & Ritchie and Doorenbos – Pruitt were the less accuracy in all climates.


1. بابامیری ا،  دین پژوه ی و اسدی ا (1392) واسنجی و ارزیابی هفت روش تخمین تبخیر- تعرق گیاه مرجع مبتنی بر تابش خورشیدی در حوضه آبریز دریاچه ارومیه. دانش آب و خاک. 4: 143-158.
2. سلطانی س و سلطانی م (1384) مقایسه برآورد تابش خورشید با استفاده از روش هارگریوز- سامانی و شبکه‌های عصبی مصنوعی. دانش کشاورزی. 15(1): 69-77.
3. علیزاده ا (1383) رابطه آب و خاک و گیاه. چاپ چهارم، انتشارات دانشگاه امام رضا(ع)، مشهد. 472 صفحه.
4. قمرنیا ه. و سپهری س (1388) اصلاح هیدرومدل الگوی کشت در شرایط کم آبیاری به‌منظور استفاده بیشتر از منابع آب و خاک در شبکه های آبیاری و زهکشی. دومین همایش ملی اثرات خشکسالی و راهکارهای مدیریت آن، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان.
6. هاشمی‌نیا س م (1385) مدیریت آب در کشاورزی. چاپ دوم، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد. 535 صفحه.
7. Dehghanisanij H, Yamamoto T and Rasiah V (2004) Assessment of Evapotranspiration Estimation Models for use in Semi - arid Environments. Agricultural Water Management. 64: 91-106.
8. Hargreaves G H (1994) Defining and using reference evapotranspiraition. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE. 120: 1132-1139.
9. Irmark S, Irmark A, Allen R G and Jones J W (2003) Solar and Net Radiation based Equations to Estimate Reference Evapotranspiration in Humid Climates. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 129(5): 336-347.
10. Jacovides. C.P .1997.  Reply to comment on Statistical procedures for the evaluation of evapotranspiraiton models, J. Agricultural water management 3:95-97.
11. Rahimikhoob A, Behbahani M A and Fakheri J (2012) An Evaluation of Four Reference Evapotranspiration Models in a Subtropical Climate. Water Resources Management. 26: 2867-2881.
12. Temesgen B, Eching S, Davidff B and FrameK (2005) Comparison of some reference evapotranspiraition equations for California. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 131(1): 73-84.
13. Tomar A S and Kumar O P (2015) Performance of Radiation-Based Refference Evapotranspiration Equations Vs FAO 56-PM model at Sub-Humid Region of Uttarakhand. International journal of Research in Advent Technology. 3(6): 51-57.
14. Valipour M (2015) Evaluation of radiation methods to study potential evapotranspiration of 31 provinces. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. 127(3): 289-303.
15. Xu CY and Singh VP (2002) Cross comparison of empirical equations for calculating potential evapotranspiration with data from Switzerland. Water Resources Management. 16(3): 197-219.