Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRichard G. Allen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T20:46:45Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T20:46:45Z
dc.date.copyrightNovember 1986
dc.date.issued1986
dc.identifier.other%28asce%290733-9437%281986%29112%3A4%28348%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/26866
dc.description.abstractTen forms of the Penman combination evapotranspiration equation are reviewed and compared with lysimeter estimates at three locations. Aerodynamic and canopy resistance forms by Monteith and Thom and Oliver and an empirical form by Wright best predict daily lysimeter measurements at Kimberly, Idaho, and Coshocton, Ohio. Canopy resistances of 40–80 s/m and momentum roughness heights of 15 mm for clipped grass and 45–70 mm for tall grass and alfalfa result in best estimates by the Monteith and Thom‐Oliver methods. The original Penman and Priestley‐Taylor versions underestimated evapotranspiration in the arid Kimberly environment. Average standard errors of estimate of the best equations average about 0.8 mm/day over growing seasons.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleA Penman for All Seasons
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume112
dc.journal.issue4
dc.journal.titleJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1986)112:4(348)
dc.treeJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering:;1986:;Volume ( 112 ):;issue: 004
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record