SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Teknik Dergi / 2020 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1

The Assesment of Empirical Potential Evapotranspiration Methods: A Case Study of Konya Closed Basin

Ampirik Potansiyel Evapotranspirasyon Tahmin Yöntemlerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Uygulama Konya Kapalı Havzası

Nermin ŞARLAK
Soner Çağatay BAĞÇACI
Pages
9755–9772
Publication Date
2020-01-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that Turc, Hargreaves-Samani ve Priestley-Taylor methods have come into prominence as an alternative to FAO-56 PM.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Evapotranspiration plays a critical role in hydrologic cycle.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The performance of six empirical methods namely Blaney-Criddle, Jensen-Haise, Makkink, Turc, Priestley-Taylor and Hargreaves-Samani were discussed comparing with FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method using daily meteorological data obtained from five stations in Konya Closed Basin.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that Turc, Hargreaves-Samani ve Priestley-Taylor methods have come into prominence as an alternative to FAO-56 PM.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Evapotranspirasyon · ampirik yöntemler · Evapotranspiration

Abstract

Evapotranspiration plays a critical role in hydrologic cycle. However, it is difficult to estimate its quantification at basin and arable land scales. Scientists have developed array of empirical equations that provide estimates of it based on more readily measured quantities in order to analyze this issue. The performance of six empirical methods namely Blaney-Criddle, Jensen-Haise, Makkink, Turc, Priestley-Taylor and Hargreaves-Samani were discussed comparing with FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method using daily meteorological data obtained from five stations in Konya Closed Basin. The results showed that Turc, Hargreaves-Samani ve Priestley-Taylor methods have come into prominence as an alternative to FAO-56 PM. Furthermore, Turc was best among the six methods when the irrigation season was considered. Another point to be emphasized is that the performance of Hargreaves-Samani method, which only needs daily temperature data, was undeniably successful in this region.

Özet

Evapotranspirasyon, hidrolojik çevrimde kritik bir rol oynar. Ancak bölgesel ve havza ölçeğinde miktarının tahmini zordur. Bilim insanları, bu konuyu incelemek amacıyla daha kolay ölçülmüş miktarlara dayanan tahminler sağlayan ampirik denklemler geliştirmişlerdir. Blaney-Criddle, Jensen-Haise, Makkink, Turc, Priestley-Taylor ve Hargreaves-Samani adlı altı ampirik yöntemin performansları, Konya Kapalı Havzası'ndaki beş istasyondan alınan günlük meteorolojik veriler kullanılarak FAO-56 Penman Monteith ile karşılaştırılmış ve tartışılmıştır. Turc, Hargreaves-Samani ve Priestley-Taylor yöntemlerinin FAO-56 Penman Monteith’e alternatif olarak ön plana çıktığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Ayrıca, sulama sezonu dikkate alındığında Turc, altı yöntemden en iyisi olmuştur. Sadece günlük sıcaklık verisine ihtiyaç duyan Hargreaves-Samani yönteminin bölge özelindeki performansının yadsınamayacak derecede başarılı olduğu vurgulanması gereken bir diğer noktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞARLAK, N., BAĞÇACI, S. Ç. (2020). The Assesment of Empirical Potential Evapotranspiration Methods: A Case Study of Konya Closed Basin. Teknik Dergi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1, 9755–9772. https://ajindex.com/articles/51219

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Katul, G.G., Oren, R., Manzoni, S., Higgins, C., Parlange, M.B., Evapotranspiration: A process Driving Mass Transport and Energy Exchange in the Soil-Plant-Atmosphere-Climate System. Rev. Geophys., 50, RG3002, 2012.
  2. Dingman, S.L., Physical Hydrology, Long Grove, Waveland Press, Inc., 2008.
  3. Akpolat, A., Mikrometeorolojik ve Lizimetre Yöntemleriyle Belirlenen Buğday Bitki Su Tüketimlerinin Karşılaştırılması. Master Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, 2011.
  4. Abdulkareem, J.H., Abdulkadir, A., Abdu, N., A Review of Different Types of Lysimeter Used in Solute Transport Studies. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 8(3), 1-14, 2015.
  5. Allen, R.G, Periera, L.S, Raes, D., Smith, M., Crop Evapotranspiration. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 1998.
  6. Lingling, Z., Jun, X., Chong-yu, X., Zhonggen, W., Leszek, S., Cangrui, L., Evapotranspiration Estimation Methods in Hydrological Models, J. Geogr. Sci., 23(2), 359-369, 2013.
  7. Alexandris, S., Stricevic, R., Petkovic, S., Comparative Analysis of Reference Evapotranspiration from the Surface of Rainfed Grass in central Serbia, Calculated by Six Empirical Methods against the Penman – Monteith Formula. European Water, 21/22, 17-28, 2008.
  8. Monteith, J.L., Evaporation and the Environment. XIX th Symposium Society for Experimental Biology, Swansea, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 205–234, 1965.
  9. Priestley, C.H.B, Taylor, R.J., On the Assessment of the Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation using Large-Scale Parameters. Monthly Weather Review, 100, 81–92, 1972.
  10. Subedi, A., Chavez, J.L., Crop Evapotranspiration (ET) Estimation Models: A Review and Discussion of the Applicability and Limitations of ET Methods. Journal of Agricultural Science, 7 (6), 50-68, 2015.
  11. Beyazgül, M., Kayam, Y., Engelsman, F., Estimation Methods for Crop Water Requirements in the Gediz Basin of Western Turkey. Journal of Hydrology, 229, 19-26, 2000.
  12. Şahin, Ü., Angın, İ., Anapalı, Ö., Evaluation of Reference Evapotranspiration Calculation Methods Applied to the Climatic Conditions of Turkey. J Hydrol. Hydromech., 52 (2), 125-133, 2004.
  13. Lu, J., Sun, G., McNulty, S.G., Amatya, D.M., A Comparison of Six Potential Evapotranspiration Methods for Regional use in the Southeastern United States. JAWRA, 41(3), 621-633, 2005.
  14. Tabari, H., Evaluation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration Equations in Various Climates. Water Resour. Manag., 24, 2311–2337, 2010.
  15. Tukimat, N.N.A., Harun, S., Shahid, S., C