Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227

Short communication
Relationship between net radiation and solar
radiation for semi-arid shrub-land
I. Alados b , I. Foyo-Moreno a , F.J. Olmo a , L. Alados-Arboledas a,∗
a Dpto de Fı́sica Aplicada, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
b Dpto de Fı́sica Aplicada, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain

Received 21 May 2002; received in revised form 21 January 2003; accepted 3 February 2003

Abstract
This paper presents the results obtained by analysing a set of measurements of surface radiation balance components at
a semi-arid location in SE Spain. The relationships between net and surface shortwave radiation were explored by using 38
months of 5 min surface radiation. The study area is covered by sparse clumped shrub-land of different species, although
close to the radiometric station Retama sphaerocarpa is dominant. After this study, it is evident that a single model based
on surface shortwave radiation could provide appropriate estimates. The inclusion of albedo information provides a slight
improvement on the estimation model. The use of seasonal models provides an appreciable improvement, while the benefits
of including cloud information are only marginal.
© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Surface radiation balance; Solar radiation; Infrared radiation; Albedo; Semi-arid regions

1. Introduction satellite and surface data, or surface data alone. These

The processes by which the net radiation is trans-
formed into atmospheric dynamical energy occur to a
large degree at the interface between the surface and
the atmosphere. As the driving force for such pro-
cess, an accurate estimation of the net radiation at the
earth’s surface is a necessary input for surface pro-
cess models. Reliable data on the net radiation at the
spatial and temporal scales needed are not available,
due to the scarcity of these measurements. As an al-
ternative, different estimation methods have been pro-
posed by using either satellite data, a combination of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-58-244024;
fax: +34-58-243214.
E-mail address: alados@ugr.es (L. Alados-Arboledas)
estimation procedures are unable to accurately esti-
mate all of the components of the radiation balance
equation:
Rn = RSd − RSu + RLd − RLu (1)
or
Rn = (1 − α) RSd + RLd − RLu (2)
where α is the surface albedo, RSd the downwelling
shortwave radiation, RSu the reflected shortwave ra-
diation, RLd the downwelling longwave radiation,
and RLu is the upwelling longwave radiation. The
upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation are
difficult to obtain. On the contrary, the shortwave
radiation can be estimated accurately from satellite
data and also are measured routinely in extended

0168-1923/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(03)00038-8
222 I. Alados et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227
radiometric networks. Hence, the importance of ap-
propriate relationships between surface net radiation
and the surface shortwave radiation.
Different authors have tested the estimation of net
radiation by means of surface shortwave radiation the
most successful being simple linear regressions (Shaw,
1956; Monteith and Szeicz, 1961; Fritschen, 1967;
Neilsen et al., 1981; Zhong et al., 1990; Pinker and
Corio, 1984; Pinker et al., 1985; Kustas et al., 1994;
Kaminsky and Dubayah, 1997).
The commonly used equations are
Rn = a1 RSd + b1
Rn = a2 (1 − α) RSd + b2
where a1 and b1 are regression coefficients.
Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997) present a revision
of the different approaches following a study of the
relationship between net radiation and shortwave ra-
diation. It is interesting to note that only Neilsen et al.
(1981); Monteith and Szeicz (1961) and Kaminsky
and Dubayah (1997) used continuous data over a range
of atmospheric conditions at more than one site for a
period longer than several months. Additionally, most
data have been recorded in areas where the dominant
land cover is agricultural. In this paper, we analyse
these relationship using a data set acquired over a pe-
riod of 38 months in a semi-arid region of Southeast-
ern Spain.
Our approach in this paper has been to use the sim-
ple Eqs. (3) and (4). Among the limitations associated
with the use of these simple equations is the exclusion
of the longwave components. In order to test these
limitations, we have analysed the seasonal variability
in the empirical coefficients included in these equa-
tions. On the other hand, considering that the presence
of clouds greatly modifies the longwave net radiation
we have developed a study by classifying the data ac-
cording the cloud cover. For this purpose, a simple
parameter such as the shortwave hemispherical trans-
mittance, readily available as far as one has shortwave
radiation estimates, was used.
2. Experimental site and measurements
The experimental campaigns were conducted at the
Rambla Honda field site, a dry valley near Tabernas,
Almerı́a, Spain (37◦ 8 N, 2◦ 22 W, 630 m a.s.l.). A de-
tailed description of the field site has been given by
Puigdefábregas et al. (1996). The area has a semi-arid
climate, with a mean annual temperature of 16 ◦ C and
a mean annual rainfall of about 230 mm. The dry pe-
riod covers June–September.
A representative stand of Retama sphaerocarpa
was selected in the middle of the dry riverbed in Ram-
bla Honda. R. sphaerocarpa is a woody leguminous
deciduous shrub; it grows up to 4 m tall and 6 m diam-
eter, with cylindrical photosynthetic stems (cladodes).
In the location of the experiments, R. sphaerocarpa
(3)
covers about one-third of the valley bottom (Domingo
(4) et al., 1999). R. sphaerocarpa shrubs are distributed
randomly with distances between shrubs of between 1
and 2 m and extent of open spaces of about 2.7–6.1 m.
Typic Torriorthent soils cover the upper hillslope
with the presence of michaschist bedrock, while
Typic Torrifluvent soils cover the riverbed, their grey
colour are responsible of the low albedo values ob-
tained in this area. The instrumented site was located
within a typical stand, with four shrubs separated by
about 2 m.
Solar radiation data recorded every 5 s was stored
as 5 min averages from August 1997 to September
2000. The 4 years period covers a complete range of
seasonal conditions. The instruments are mounted on
a mast at 3.8 m above ground level. The measurements
include horizontal solar global and reflected radiation,
by means of a Kipp & Zonen (Delft, The Netherlands)
pyranometers (CM-11). The longwave radiation were
measured with Eppley (Newport, Rhode Island, USA)
pyrgeometers model PIR. The downwelling long-
wave radiation was corrected for the solar heating of
the pyrgeometer following the procedure described
in Alados-Arboledas et al. (1988) and Pérez and
Alados-Arboledas (1999). The calibration constants
of the radiometers have been periodically checked
and the aging of the sensor has been traced following
the procedure described in Alados-Arboledas et al.
(1988). The 5 min average measurements of the differ-
ent surface net radiation components have been used
to estimate the surface net radiation using Eq. (1).
To characterize the cloud conditions, we have used
the broadband solar hemispherical transmittance,
computed as the ratio of solar global radiation at
the surface to the solar extraterrestrial radiation on a
horizontal surface.
 I. Alados et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227 223

Table 1
Results of fitting measurements of net radiation, Rn , to two equations involving solar radiation, RSd
Model N Rn = a1 RSd + b1 S.D. (W m−2 ) R2 Rn = a2 (1 − α) RSd + b2 S.D. (W m−2 ) R2

a1 b1 (W m−2 ) a2 b2 (W m−2 )

Global 45572 0.685 −47.5 39 0.95 0.781 −47.0 34 0.96

K&D 45572 0.709 −25.4 36 0.95 0.811 −22.2 29 0.97
Winter 12558 0.716 ± 0.001 −46.5 ± 0.5 35 0.96 0.803 ± 0.001 −45.2 ± 0.5 31 0.97
Spring 10572 0.696 ± 0.001 −55.3 ± 0.8 40 0.97 0.792 ± 0.001 −52.6 ± 0.7 36 0.97
Summer 9774 0.662 ± 0.002 −55.1 ± 0.8 41 0.95 0.761 ± 0.002 −52.4 ± 0.7 36 0.96
Autumn 12668 0.684 ± 0.002 −46.9 ± 0.7 35 0.93 0.764 ± 0.002 −41.3 ± 0.6 29 0.95
Winter
kt1 3374 0.800 ± 0.008 −44 ± 1 35 0.76 0.904 ± 0.009 −45 ± 1 34 0.77
kt2 3734 0.736 ± 0.004 −62 ± 2 34 0.90 0.826 ± 0.004 −58 ± 1 30 0.93
kt3 5450 0.778 ± 0.003 −85 ± 2 31 0.94 0.865 ± 0.003 −80 ± 1 27 0.95
Spring
kt1 2585 0.759 ± 0.005 −51 ± 1 28 0.90 0.868 ± 0.006 −51 ± 1 28 0.90
kt2 4126 0.769 ± 0.003 −88 ± 2 38 0.94 0.867 ± 0.003 −81 ± 1 33 0.95
kt3 3861 0.788 ± 0.004 −140 ± 3 40 0.93 0.876 ± 0.003 −122 ± 3 35 0.94
Summer
kt1 2064 0.722 ± 0.007 −47 ± 1 33 0.82 0.824 ± 0.007 −46 ± 1 39 0.86
kt2 4626 0.729 ± 0.003 −84 ± 1 36 0.93 0.832 ± 0.003 −78 ± 1 32 0.94
kt3 3084 0.743 ± 0.005 −122 ± 3 44 0.89 0.843 ± 0.005 −112 ± 3 38 0.92
Autumn
kt1 2211 0.64 ± 0.01 −22 ± 1 32 0.66 0.73 ± 0.01 −25 ± 1 30 0.69
kt2 4037 0.755 ± 0.005 −74 ± 1 34 0.86 0.850 ± 0.005 −70 ± 1 30 0.89
kt3 6420 0.686 ± 0.003 −48 ± 1 29 0.91 0.779 ± 0.003 −49 ± 1 26 0.93
The ranges of atmospheric transmittance are: kt1 (0.0 ≤ kt ≤ 0.35), kt2 (0.35 < kt ≤ 0.7), kt3 (0.70 < kt ≤ 1.0). N is the number of 5 min
periods using data recorded from August 1997 to March 1999. S.D. and R2 are the standard deviation and the correlation coefficient of
the linear regressions.

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Global models
By linear regression fit, we have computed the
coefficients in Eqs. (3) and (4) using data recorded
under all sky conditions for solar elevations greater
than 10◦ . Data recorded from August 1997 to March
1999 have been used for this purpose. Table 1 shows
the intercept and slope for Eqs. (3) and (4), the deter-
mination coefficient, R2 , and the standard deviation,
S.D., for each one of the linear fits. The use of Eq. (4)
lead to a slight improvement in both the determina-
tion coefficient, R2 , and the standard deviation, S.D.
Both slopes had values in the range encountered by
Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997) for data registered in
BOREAS experiment but slightly smaller than that
encountered by Stanhill et al. (1966) in an arid envi-
ronment. On the other hand, the intercepts obtained
in our study are less negative than that determined
by Stanhill et al. (1966), and duplicate the values ob-
tained by Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997). Considering
that Eq. (4) includes information on surface albedo,
the main differences encountered with the results of
Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997) could be related to the
differences in the longwave net radiation regime be-
tween boreal locations and our semi-arid environment.
The differences with Stanhill et al. (1966) could be
associated with the fact that these authors limited their
study to data collected in the period from midwinter to
summer with a predominance of clear sky conditions.
To test the predictive capability of these models
(Global Eqs. (3) and (4)) we present the statistical
results included in Table 2. This analysis have been
performed over an independent data set, not used in
the models development, including data recorded from
224 I. Alados et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227

Table 2
Comparison of estimated versus measured net radiation, Rn
Model N a b (W m−2 ) R2 MBD (W m−2 ) RSMD (W m−2 )

Global Eq. (3) 69612 0.960 25.2 0.95 13 47

K&D Eq. (3) 69612 0.993 49.6 0.95 48 66
Global Eq. (4) 69612 0.971 18.7 0.95 10 42
K&D Eq. (4) 69612 1.008 46.6 0.96 49 65
Seasonal Eq. (3) 69612 0.954 20.6 0.95 7.2 42
Seasonal Eq. (4) 69612 0.967 16.7 0.96 6.8 39
Seasonal kt Eq. (3) 69612 0.967 17.0 0.96 7.2 41
Seasonal kt Eq. (4) 69612 0.979 12.7 0.96 6.5 38
Rn estimated using data recorded from April 1999 to September 2000 in two equations involving solar radiation, RSd . Global Eqs. (3)
and (4) use the coefficients given in Table 1. K&D Eqs. (3) and (4) use the coefficients determined by Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997).
Seasonal Eqs. (3) and (4) use the coefficients given in Table 1 for winter, spring, summer and autumn. Seasonal kt Eqs. (3) and (4) use
the coefficients given in Table 1 for the different ranges of kt for the four seasons. N, R2 , MBD and RMSD are the number of 5 min
averages, the correlation coefficient, the mean bias deviation and the root mean square deviation.

April 1999 to September 2000. There we included the
slope a, and intercept b, of the regression line between
estimated and measured values and the determination
coefficient of this fit, the root mean square deviation
(RMSD), and the mean bias deviation (MBD). This
table also includes the results obtained with the co-
efficients derived by Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997),
K&D. The necessity of a local fit of these coefficients
is evident. Thus, the different statistics, especially the
values of MBD and RMSD indicate the goodness of
the local fits and the poor results obtained with coef-
ficients developed in other locations.
There is a slight improvement in the estimates
when Eq. (4), which includes the surface albedo as
input variable, is used. Different authors (Davies,
1966; Fritschen, 1967; Fitzpatrick and Stern, 1970;
Kaminsky and Dubayah, 1997) have analysed the per-
formance of this kind of equations. Fritschen (1967)
concluded that the inclusion of the albedo as input
variable did not produce a significant improvement in
the estimations, while Kaminsky and Dubayah (1997)
suggest that the improvement they encountered using
Eq. (4) was associated with the albedo seasonal vari-
ability that is characteristic of their study area, where
it is possible to find snow covered areas in winter. In
our case, we detect a slight improvement in terms of
better values for the slope and intercept in the regres-
sion analysis of estimated versus measured values.
Similar improvement could be encountered for RMSD
and MBD. This could be a result of the small range
of albedo values encountered in our area through the
year. In any case, considering that the albedo is a vari-
able that is not measured routinely it seems that the
single model based only on downwelling shortwave
radiation could be more convenient.
3.2. Seasonal modelling
To detect the influence of longwave net radiation
on the fitting of Eqs. (3) and (4), we have performed
the corresponding seasonal fittings. For this pur-
pose, the data has been grouped in 3 months bins:
January–March (winter), April–June (spring), July–
September (summer) and October–December (au-
tumn). After a preliminary test, we have conclude the
convenience of use these bins combining all the years
included in our study. Table 1 includes the results
obtained for the adjustable coefficients in Eqs. (3)
and (4), together with the determination coefficient,
R2 , obtained in the associated linear fitting, using
data recorded from August 1997 to March 1999. The
inclusion of the albedo as an input parameter, that is
the use of shortwave net radiation as an estimator of
net radiation, leads to a general improvement in the
determination coefficients. Kaminsky and Dubayah
(1997) have obtained similar improvements in their
analysis performed over BOREAS data set. Consid-
ering the standard error associated with the seasonal
slopes and intercepts of Eqs. (3) and (4), included
in Table 1, it is evident that the differences among
 I. Alados et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227
Fig. 1. The seasonal variation of the intercepts, b1 and b2 , in
Eqs. (3) and (4) and the net longwave radiation, RLn .
the coefficients obtained for each season are statisti-
cally significant, with the more negative values of a1
and a2 corresponding to spring and summer months.
This fact reflects the dependence of this term on the
net longwave radiation that presents higher values
(more negative ones) in the hottest seasons when the
surface reaches higher temperatures and there is a re-
duced probability of cloudy conditions. On the other
hand, the slope for Eq. (3) present reduced values for
summer conditions. The intercept in Eq. (4) shows
behaviour similar to that encountered for the inter-
cept in Eq. (3), although the inclusion of the albedo
as input variable leaded to a slight reduction in the
intercept. On the contrary, the slope term increased
their values and reduced its variability.
Fig. 1 shows the seasonal variation of the intercept
in Eqs. (3) and (4) in comparison with the mean value
of the longwave net radiation. It is evident that the in-
tercepts in Eqs. (3) and (4) follow the pattern of the
longwave net radiation, this last term being more neg-
ative than each of the intercepts. The differences in the
values of intercepts and longwave net radiation could
be explained by analysing the relationships between
the surface albedo and the slopes in Eqs. (3) and (4).
The analysis of Eqs. (2)–(4) indicates that the surface
albedo is directly related to the term 1 − (a1 /a2 ) when
b1 = b2 . Fig. 2 shows the very similar behaviour of
the mean seasonal values of the surface albedo and
that of the term 1 − (a1 /a2 ). It is also evident that a1
225
Fig. 2. The seasonal variation of the of the surface albedo, α, and
the term 1 − (a1 /a2 ).
is always smaller than unity, while a2 is smaller than
(1 − α). Thus, considering Eqs. (2)–(4), it is evident
that these reduced values of the slope implies a reduc-
tion in the negative magnitude of the intercepts.
The statistically significant differences among the
fittings obtained for each seasonal bin, Table 1, give
an indication of the influence of longwave net radi-
ation on the quality of these fittings. Table 2 shows
the slight reduction in the intercept of the regression
line of estimated versus measured values by using the
seasonal fittings of Eqs. (3) and (4). There is a small
reduction in RMSD, while MBD values present a re-
duction close to 60% over that encountered for the
global fits.
3.3. Cloud influence
The presence of clouds influences markedly the net
radiation. Clouds affect both the solar and longwave
net radiation. For the kind of models used in this study,
the cloud effect on the solar net radiation is appropri-
ately considered through the use of horizontal global
radiation as input variable. Nevertheless, the cloud
effect on the longwave net radiation needs to be con-
sidered in a different way. For this purpose, consider-
ing that the influence of longwave net radiation could
influence the performance of models 3 and 4, it could
be worthy, as several authors have suggested (Neilsen
et al., 1981; Kaminsky and Dubayah, 1997), to anal-
yse the success of the previous models using separate
cloud cover classes. In our case, we do not have
226 I. Alados et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227
cloud information for our station, and thus we have
used the broadband solar hemispherical transmittance
as an indicator of the overall atmospheric transmit-
tance, which is related to the presence of clouds This
transmittance also presents a dependence on the sun
elevation and thus shows a certain seasonal variation.
In our study, we have classified the data in categories
of this hemispherical transmittance according to the
following limits: kt1 (0.0 ≤ kt ≤ 0.35), kt2 (0.35 <
kt ≤ 0.7), kt3 (0.70 < kt ≤ 1.0). Table 1 shows the re-
sults of the fits obtained for Eq. (4) with the different
hemispherical transmittance classes considered for
Fig. 3. (a) The seasonal variation of the intercept, b1 in Eq. (3) and
the net longwave radiation, RLn . (b) The seasonal variation of the
intercept, b2 in Eq. (4) and the net longwave radiation, RLn . The
atmospheric transmittances, kt1 < kt2 < kt3 indicate increasing
cloudiness.
each season. From Fig. 3 it is evident that the inter-
cept increases in absolute value as the hemispherical
transmittance increases, thus suggesting that the more
negative values of the intercept are associated with
the cloudless conditions, where the infrared radiative
cooling of the surface is enhanced. The success of the
models that includes both the seasonal influence and
the cloud effect through the use of the hemispher-
ical broadband transmittance can be appreciated in
Table 2. There is only a slight improvement over the
results obtained using seasonal fits. Thus, we obtain
slopes closer to unity, with slightly reduced values
for RMSD and MBD.
4. Conclusions
In this work, we have analysed surface net radiation
in a semi-arid region covered by sparse vegetation.
We have tested the use of different approaches in
order to estimate this radiation, needed in different
micrometeorological studies, from information on
the global solar radiation at the surface level. The
influence of the albedo has been also considered, ob-
taining only a slight improvement after its inclusion
in the model. In this sense, considering that this vari-
able is not usually measured but taken from tables the
expression based only on global solar radiation could
be of more extended use. Additionally, seasonal and
cloud dependent models has been considered. The use
of seasonal models provides better results that can be
explained by an implicit inclusion of the dependence
of net radiation on longwave net radiation. Although
the additional complexity of seasonal models seems
to be worthy, this is not the case for the models that
include the cloud effects through the solar hemispher-
ical transmittance due to the only slight improvement
obtained in this case. Although our analyses cover
several years of measurements, they are limited to a
single location. Thus, the results present an evident
local dependence and extension to other places would
require the appropriate local fit.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by La Dirección Gen-
eral de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a from the Education
 I. Alados et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116 (2003) 221–227
and Research Spanish Ministry through project no.
CLI1999-0835-C02-01. The authors are indebted to
the Regional Editor Dr. J.B. Stewart and the anony-
mous referees who read the manuscript and made
valuable suggestions.
References
Alados-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J.I., 1988. Effects of
solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometer with silicon
domes. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 5, 666–670.
Davies, J.A., 1966. A note on the relationship between net radiation
and solar radiation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 109–115.
Domingo, F., Villagarcı́a, L., Brenner, A.J., Puigdefábregas, J.,
1999. Evapotranspiration model for semi-arid shrub-lands tested
against data from SE Spain. Agric. For. Meteorol. 95 (2), 67–
84.
Fitzpatrick, E.A., Stern, W.R., 1970. Net radiation estimated from
global solar radiation, Proc. Uppsala Symp. 403–410.
Fritschen, L.J., 1967. Net and solar radiation relations over irrigated
field crops. Agric. Meteorol. 4, 55–62.
Kaminsky, K.Z., Dubayah, R., 1997. Estimation of surface net
radiation in the boreal forest and northern prairie from
shortwave flux measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 102 (D24),
29707–29716.
Kustas, W.P., Pinker, R.T., Schmugger, T.J., Humes, K.S., 1994.
Net radiation estimated for semiarid rangeland basin sensed
date. Agric. For. Meteorol. 71, 337–357.
227
Monteith, J.L., Szeicz, G., 1961. The radiation balance of bare
soil and vegetation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 87, 159–170.
Neilsen, L.B., Prahm, L.P., Berkowicz, R., Conradse, K., 1981.
Incoming radiation estimated from hourly global radiation cloud
observations. J. Climatol. 1, 255–272.
Pérez, M., Alados-Arboledas, L., 1999. Effects of natural
ventilation and solar radiation on the performance of
pyrgeometers. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 16, 174–180.
Pinker, R.T., Corio, L.A., 1984. Surface radiation budget from
satellite. Mon. Weather Rev. 112, 209–215.
Pinker, R.T., Corio, L.A., Tarpley, J.D., 1985. The relationship
between planetary and surface net radiation, J. Clim. Appl.
Meteorol. 1268–1272.
Puigdefábregas, J., Aguilera, C., Alonso, J.M., Brenner, A.J., Clark,
S.C., Cueto, M., Delgado, L., Domingo, F., Gutiérrez, L., Incoll,
L.D., Lázaro, R., Nicolau, J.M., Sánchez, G., Solé, A., Vidal,
S., 1996. The Rambla Honda field site. Interactions of soil and
vegetation along a catena in semi-arid SE Spain. In: Brandt, J.,
Thornes, J.B. (Eds.), Mediterranean Desertification and Land
Use. Wiley, London, pp. 137–168.
Shaw, R.H., 1956. A comparison of solar radiation and net
radiation. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 37, 205–206.
Stanhill, G., Hofstede, G.J., Kalma, J.D., 1966. Radiation balance
of natural and agricultural vegetation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.
92, 128–140.
Zhong, M., Weil, A., Toconet, O., 1990. Estimation of net radiation
surface heat fluxes using NOAA-7 satellite infrared data cloudy
situations of MESOGERS-84. Boundary Layer Meteorol. 53,
353–370.