Comparison of three evapotranspiration models to Bowen

ratio-energy balance method for a vineyard in an arid

desert region of northwest China
Baozhong Zhang
a
, Shaozhong Kang
a,
*, Fusheng Li
b
, Lu Zhang
c
a
Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
b
Agricultural College, Guangxi University, Nanning 530005, China
c
CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
1. Introduction
Grapevines are important for local economy in the arid region
of northwest China since the region has abundant sunlight
resource and is suitable for vine industry. In recent years,
horticulture has been becoming an important industry for
local economy. For example, the region produces high quality
grape fruits. However, limited water resources affect the
sustainability of vine production in the region (Du et al., 2005).
In the arid region, deep groundwater has been extracted for
irrigation to maintain agricultural production. With develop-
ment of irrigated agriculture and rapid population growth in
the region, over-exploration of water resources has led to
serious environmental degradations, e.g. gradually falling of
groundwater table, shrinking of vegetation areas, soil salini-
zation and desertication (Kang et al., 2004). Thus manage-
ment of irrigation to increase water use efciency of vine crop
is important for sustainable economic development and
a gr i c ul t ur a l a nd f o r e s t me t e or ol o gy 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 26 November 2007
Received in revised form
8 April 2008
Accepted 19 May 2008
Keywords:
Bowen ratio-energy balance
Clumping model
Evapotranspiration
PenmanMonteith model
ShuttleWallace model
Vineyard
a b s t r a c t
The accurate determination of vineyard evapotranspiration (ET) in the arid desert region of
northwest China is important for allocating irrigation water and improving water use
efciency. Taken a vineyard at the Shiyang river basinof the Hexi corridor of Gansu Province
as an example, this study evaluated the applicability of the Bowen ratio-energy balance
(BREB) method in the arid desert region of northwest China, simulated the variation of
vineyard ET by PenmanMonteith (PM), ShuttleWallace (SW) and Clumping (C) models in
this regionand compared the estimated ETby the three models with the measured ET by the
BREB. Results indicated that the BREB could provide the accurate measurement of vineyard
ET from the arid desert region when the Bowen ratio instrument with higher accuracy was
correctly installed. Generally, the variation of the estimated ET fromPM, SWand Cmodels
were similar to that of the measured ET by the BREB method. However, the PM model
overestimated the ET signicantly; the estimated ET from the SW and C models, especially
from the C model was approximately equal to the measured ET by the BREB. After a rainfall,
the performances of the SW and C models were also good. Therefore, among the three
models, the C model was the optimal model in simulating the vineyard ET in the arid region
of northwest China. However, after a frost, the C model signicantly overestimated the
evapotranspiration because the canopy resistance did not fully reect the dramatic
decrease of grapevine transpiration.
# 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Fax: +86 10 62737611.
E-mail address: kangshaozhong@tom.com (S. Kang).
avai l abl e at www. sci encedi r ect . com
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ agr f or met
0168-1923/$ see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.05.016
accurate determination of vineyard evapotranspiration (ET)
will provide scientic basis for such strategies.
The Bowen ratio-energy balance (BREB) is a micrometeor-
ological method for estimating evapotranspiration that has
been widely used in a variety of eld conditions. However, the
application of BREB system to estimate ET in fruit trees is still
not clear because of the following assumptions. (1) The closure
of the energy balance is forced (Brotzge and Crawford, 2003). (2)
Eddy diffusivity of vapor (K
w
) is equal to Eddy diffusivity of heat
(K
h
) (Angus and Watts, 1984) and during the nighttime,
advection, and high wind speed, the assumption is disputed.
But, in general, the BREB method has high measurement
accuracy when adopting the reasonable set of criteria for
selecting between reliable and unreliable measure values
(Azevedo et al., 2003; Cellier and Brunet, 1992; Dugas et al.,
1991). Spittlehouse and Black (1979, 1980) and Federer (1970)
analyzed the applicability of BREB method to forest evapo-
transpiration. There are also some reports on the estimation of
vineyard evapotranspiration over the whole growing season
using the BREB method (Ham et al., 1991; Ham and Heilman,
1991; Spano et al., 2000; Yunusa et al., 2004) and they indicate
that BREBhas goodperformancesinestimatingthefruit treeET.
Since measurement of ET is limited by temporal and spatial
factors, mathematical modelling of evapotranspiration is an
important tool to answer many of the important questions
basedontheestimatesoverlargecatchment areasandlongtime
scales (Domingo et al., 1999). Among many models of evapo-
transpirationthat havebeendeveloped, thebest knownmodels
are the single-layer PenmanMonteith (PM) model (Monteith
and Unsworth, 1990; Ortega-Farias et al., 2004, 2006; Rana et al.,
1997a,b), and the two-layer ShuttleWallace (SW) model
(Farahani and Ahuja, 1996; Nichols, 1992; Sene, 1994; Shuttle-
worth and Wallace, 1985; Teh et al., 2001; Wallace et al., 1990).
The PM model cannot distinguish between soil evapora-
tionand plant transpiration, and treats the land surface as one
homogeneous layer (Monteith, 1965). Its simplicity makes the
model widely used and many studies have shownthat the PM
model is accurate to describe evapotranspiration in densely
vegetated canopies (Monteith and Unsworth, 1990). But such
models may be inappropriate for partially or sparsely
vegetated canopies because it does not sufciently consider
the differences between vegetation and soil, especially on
sparsely vegetated canopies (Mo, 1998), and the source/sinks
of uxes may occur at signicantly separated heights
(Farahani and Bausch, 1995). However, other studies have
argued that the PM model with a variable surface canopy
resistance (r
c
) can be a good tool to estimate ET directly for
sparsely vegetated canopies under different soil water con-
ditions (Ortega-Farias et al., 2004, 2006; Rana et al., 1997a,b).
Because there is argument about whether the PMmodel is
appropriate for sparsely vegetated canopies or not and the
model cannot distinguish between soil evaporation and plant
transpiration, Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985) developed a
two-layer model (SWmodel) to estimate soil evaporation and
transpiration separately. The soil evaporation included in the
SWmodel improves the predictionof ETwhenleaf area index
is low. The SW model has been proved particularly useful for
row crops and clumping crops (Farahani and Bausch, 1995;
Farahani and Ahuja, 1996; Nichols, 1992; Sene, 1994; Stannard,
1993; Teh et al., 2001; Wallace et al., 1990).
Although many results have shown that the SW model is
better than the PMmodel when applied in sparsely vegetated
canopies, there also are many hypotheses and disadvantages
for the SW model. Thus the sparse-crop model of Shuttle-
worth and Wallace (1985) has been extended to several multi-
layer models insome cases, for example, a Clumping (C) model
(Brenner and Incoll, 1997; Domingo et al., 1999; Guo, 1999;
Tourula and Heikinheino, 1998). The C model overcomes the
limitationof uniformly distributedvegetationover a surface in
the SW model (Brenner and Incoll, 1997), however, it is
simpler compared with other multi-species canopies or soils
models such as that reported by Gu et al. (1999). The C model
partitions energy among vegetation and soil based on
fractional vegetative cover ( f) and its theory is more reason-
able comparedwiththose of single- andtwo- layer models. But
the multi-layer models require a large number of parameters
and determination of these parameters is difcult, leading to
increased model error. Moreover, the calculation of evapo-
transpirationusing the models is inevitably complicated. Thus
the multi-layer models are not easy to apply in estimating ET
(Zhang et al., 2001). Brenner and Incoll (1997) showed the C
model slightly improved the estimated ET in a dry valley in
Spain when compared to the SWmodel. Domingo et al. (1999)
gave more detailed description of the radiation balance in
modifying the C model, then the model improved the
agreement between predicted and observed ET by the BREB,
but the modied C model needs more parameters in energy
ows within sparse vegetation. Thus the applicability of C
model to the arid desert regions of northwest China needs to
be veried.
As stated above, although there are many reported studies
on the Bowen ratio-energy balance, PenmanMonteith, Shut-
tleworthWallace and Clumping models, a fewworks reported
in the literature on the BREB and the three evapotranspiration
models for the arid desert regionof northwest China. Thus it is
important to study the applicability of the Bowen ratio-energy
balance and three evapotranspiration models in the arid
desert region of northwest China.
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the applic-
ability of the BREB and the three evapotranspiration models
for estimating ET in the arid desert region of northwest China,
and to determine the limit of three models and the optimal
model to establish the irrigation scheduling for local vineyard.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental site and measurements
The experiment was conducted during the periods of April
October, 2005 and 2006 at the Experimental Station for Water-
saving in Agriculture and Ecology in the Shiyang river basin of
China Agricultural University, located in Wuwei, Gansu
Province, in the border of Tenger Desert (N 37852
0
20
00
, E
102850
0
50
00
, altitude 1581 m). The site is in a typical continental
temperate climate zone. It is rich in sunlight resource with a
mean annual sunshine duration over 3000 h, mean annual
temperature of 8 8C, annual accumulated temperature (>0 8C)
of 3550 8C and frost-free days of 150 days. However, the region
is limited in water resources with a mean annual precipitation
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f or e s t me t e o r o l og y 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1630
of 164 mm, and mean annual evaporation from a free water
surface is 2000 mm. Average groundwater table varied
between 25 and 30 m below the ground surface. Soil is light
sandy loam texture, with a mean dry bulk density of 1.43 g/
cm
3
, mean porosity of 52%, mean volumetric soil water
content at eld capacity of 0.37 cm
3
/cm
3
and mean volumetric
soil water content at wilting point of 0.12 cm
3
/cm
3
at the 0
100 cm layers.
Measurements were made in a vineyard in the Experi-
mental Station and the grapevines were planted in 2000, with
row spacing of 290 cm and plant spacing of 180 cm. The trellis
for grape vine was 1.5 m in height. Grapevine roots are mainly
distributed at the 4060 cm soil layers, with the deepest roots
at the about 100 cmlayers. The maximumallowable soil water
depletion was 250 mm. The experimental vineyard was
furrow-irrigated ve times in 2005 and four times in 2006
over the whole growing stage for both years according to the
local vineyard irrigation, i.e. with irrigation amount of 15 mm
for the rst two irrigation dates, 20 mm for other irrigation
dates in 2005, and irrigation amount of 41.7 mm for each
irrigation date in 2006, respectively.
The Bowen ratio instrument (Campbell Scientic Inc., USA)
was installed in a grape-plant row near the south side of
central vineyard and there was about 110 m of fetch in the up
wind direction (northwest) during the experimentation. The
net radiation (R
n
) was measured by net radiometer (model
Q7.1) mounted at 1.0 m above the vegetation surface. The soil
heat ux (G) was measured at two points, in the ditch and
ridge, by heat ux plates (model HFP01) inserted at 80 mm
below the ground surface and was calculated from heat
storage above 80 mm. Heat storage was calculated from soil
temperature measured as an average of temperatures at 20
and 60 mm depths. Temperature and humidity were mea-
sured using two integrated temperaturehumidity probes
inside radiation-shielded (model HMP45C). The heights of the
two xed measurements were 0.5 and 1.9 m above the
vegetation surface. All data were collected by a data-logger
(model CR23X) every 5 s and 10 min averages were calculated
and stored. Measurements were made continuously during
the period of 7 May15 October in 2005 and 1 May7 October in
2006.
Soil moisture measurements were made at the center of
the experimental led using portable device (Diviner 2000,
Sentek Pty. Ltd., Australia). Diviner 2000 consists of a probe
and hand-held data logger and utilizes frequency domain
reectometry (FDR) to measure soil water throughout the
prole. Ninety-six and thirty-six PVC access tubes were evenly
installed in the experimental site in 2005 and 2006. Measure-
ments were made at 0.1 m intervals with maximal soil depth
of 1.0 m every third day in 2005 or every day in 2006. The
frequency of the soil moisture measurements was increased
to hourly interval after each irrigation and rainfall. The
gravimetric sampling technique and steel rings was used to
calibrate the Diviner 2000 display unit.
Leaf stomatal resistance was measured every 5 days with
LCI portable photosynthesis system (ADC BioScientic Ltd.,
England) and the frequency of the leaf stomatal resistance
measurements was increased to daily interval after each
irrigation. Leaf area index was measured every 15 days using
AccuPAR LP-80 (Decagon Devices Inc., USA). Fractional
vegetative cover ( f) was estimated by measuring the dimen-
sion of canopy every 15 days. And the solar radiation,
precipitation, maximum and minimum air temperature,
relative humidity and wind speed were measured with a
standard automatic weather station near the experimental
vineyard.
2.2. Bowen ratio-energy balance method
The latent heat ux can be estimated by Bowen ratio-energy
balance method as follows:
lET
R
n
G
1 b
(1)
where lET is the latent heat ux (W/m
2
), l the heat of water
vaporization (J/kg), ET the evapotranspiration (mm), R
n
the net
radiation (W/m
2
), and G is the ground heat ux (W/m
2
). The
Bowen ratio (b) is dened as follows:
b g
DT
De
(2)
where DT and De are the temperature (8C) and vapor pressure
(kPa) difference between the two measurement levels, respec-
tively, g the psychrometric constant (kPa/8C). Then the vegeta-
tion evapotranspiration can be calculated fromEqs. (1) and (2).
The accuracy of the calculated values of latent and sensible
heat uxes depends on the accuracy of the Bowen ratio (b) and
the situations in which the BREB fails or causes inconsistent
results have been analyzed (Angus and Watts, 1984; Perez
et al., 1999). In the paper, the set of criteria for selecting
between reliable and unreliable values promoted by Perez
et al. (1999) was adopted.
2.3. Soil water balance
Soil water balance is an indirect method for estimating
evapotranspiration and it is based on the principle of
conservation of mass:
P I W ET R D DS (3)
where P is the precipitation (mm), I the irrigation (mm), W the
contribution from water table upward (mm), ET the actual
evapotranspiration (mm), R the surface runoff (mm), D the
drainage (mm) and DS is the change in soil water storage (mm)
and can be calculated as
DS St
2
St
1
(4)
with S(t
1
) and S(t
2
) are the soil water content at time t
1
(mm)
and t
2
(mm), respectively.
In our study, rstly, water cannot be ooded fromthe ditch
because the ow rate of furrow in the vineyard is not greater.
Secondly, the experimental site was at and the precipitation
was not intensive. Furthermore, segregation belt was built
between the vineyard and the surrounding area, so the runoff
could be negligible. And the drainage (D) could also be
neglected according to the data of soil water content in the
prole after irrigation (Fig. 1) and there is a layer of
impermeable clay below about 100 cm. Contribution from
water table upward (W) was considered negligible because the
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f o r e s t me t e o r ol o gy 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1631
water table was over 25 m deep. The soil water balance Eq. (3)
can be simplied:
P I ET DS (5)
Evapotranspiration can be calculated from Eq. (5) once
precipitation, irrigation, and soil moisture are known.
2.4. Evapotranspiration model
2.4.1. PenmanMonteith model
The PenmanMonteith (PM) model can be expressed as
(Monteith, 1965)
lET
DR
n
G rC
p
D=r
a

D g1 r
c
=r
a

(6)
where D is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure curve
(kPa/8C), r the air density (kg/m
3
), C
p
the specic heat of dry air
at constant pressure (J/(kg K)), Dthe water vapor decit (kPa), r
a
the aerodynamic resistance (s/m) and r
c
is the surface canopy
resistance (s/m).
The surface canopy resistance r
c
, which depends on
climate factors and available soil water, can be expressed as
follows (Jarvis, 1976):
r
c

r
STmin
LAI
e

i
F
i
X
i

(7)
where r
STmin
is the minimal stomatal resistance of individual
leaves under optimal conditions (taken as 146 s/m). LAI
e
is the
effective LAI and equals to actual LAI for LAI 2, LAI/2 for
LAI ! 4, and 2 for intermediate values of LAI. X
i
is a specic
environmental variable, and F
i
(X
i
) is the stress function of X
i
,
with 0 F
i
(X
i
) 1. Ignoring the concentration of CO
2
, the
remaining environmental stress functions are as follows (Jar-
vis, 1976):
F
1
S
S
1100
_ _
1100 a
1
S a
1
_ _
(8)
F
2
T
T T
L
T
H
T
THa2=a2TL
a
2
T
L
T
H
a
2

THa2=a2TL
(9)
F
3
D e
a
3
D
(10)
F
4
u
1 u !u
F
u u
W
u
F
u
W
u
F
<u <u
W
0 u u
W
_

_
(11)
where S is the incoming photosynthetically active radiation
ux (W/m
2
), T the air temperature (K), u
F
is the soil water
content at eld capacity (cm
3
/cm
3
), u
W
the soil moisture con-
tent at wilting point (cm
3
/cm
3
), and u is the actual soil moist-
ure content in the root-zone (cm
3
/cm
3
). T
H
and T
L
are the
upper and lower temperature limits outside of which tran-
spiration is assumed to cease (8C) and are set at values of
40 and 0 8C (Harris et al., 2004). The a
1
, a
2
and a
3
, derived by
multi-variate optimization, are 57.67, 25.78 and 9.65, respec-
tively.
The aerodynamic resistance r
a
can be expressed as (Perrier,
1975a,b)
r
a

lnz d=h
c
d lnz d=z
0

k
2
u
(12)
where k is Karman constant (0.40), z the reference height (m),
h
c
is mean crop height (m), d the zero plane displacement (m),
u the wind speed at the reference height (m/s), and z
0
is the
roughness length of the crop relative to momentum transfer
(m).
Roughness length (z
0
) and zero plane displacement (d) are
dened as functions of crop height and leaf area index (LAI)
(Brenner and Incoll, 1997), given by
d 1:1h
c
ln1 X
0:25
(13)
z
0

z
0
0
0:3h
c
X
0:5
0 <X<0:2
0:3h
c
1 d=h
c
0:2 <X<1:5
_
(14)
where X = c
d
LAI, c
d
is the mean drag coefcient (taken as
0.07) (Brenner and Incoll, 1997), and z
0
0
is the roughness
length of bare soil surface (0.01 m) (Van Bavel and Hillel,
1976).
2.4.2. ShuttleworthWallace model
The ShuttleworthWallace (SW) model assumes that there is
blending of heat uxes from the leaves and the soil in the
mean canopy airow at the height of the effective canopy
source (Shuttleworth and Wallace, 1985). The SW model is
expressed as follows:
lET lE lT C
s
sw
PM
s
sw
C
p
sw
PM
p
sw
(15)
PM
s
sw

DA
sw
rC
P
D Dr
s
a
A
sw
A
s
sw
=r
a
a
r
s
a

D g1 r
s
s
=r
a
a
r
s
a

(16)
PM
p
sw

DA
sw
rC
P
D Dr
p
a
A
s
sw
=r
a
a
r
p
a

D g1 r
p
s
=r
a
a
r
p
a

(17)
C
s
sw

1
1 R
s
sw
R
a
sw
=R
p
sw
R
s
sw
R
a
sw

(18)
Fig. 1 Spatial variation of soil water content at 0100 cm
soil profile after irrigation (28 May 2006).
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f or e s t me t e o r o l og y 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1632
C
p
sw

1
1 R
p
sw
R
a
sw
=R
s
sw
R
p
sw
R
a
sw

(19)
R
s
sw
D gr
s
a
gr
s
s
(20)
R
p
sw
D gr
p
a
gr
p
s
(21)
R
a
sw
D gr
a
a
(22)
where lE is the latent heat ux of evaporation from the soil
surface (W/m
2
), lT the latent heat of transpiration from
canopy (W/m
2
), r
p
s
the canopy resistance (s/m), r
p
a
the aero-
dynamic resistance of the canopy to in-canopy ow (s/m), r
s
s
the soil surface resistance (s/m), r
a
a
and r
s
a
the aerodynamic
resistances from the reference height to in-canopy heat
exchange plane height and from there to the soil surface (s/
m), respectively, A
sw
andA
s
sw
are the total available energy and
the available energy to the soil (W/m
2
), respectively, which are
dened as follows:
A
sw
R
n
G (23)
A
s
sw
R
s
nsw
G (24)
where R
s
nsw
is net radiation uxes into the soil surface
(W/m
2
).
The radiation reaching the soil surface can be calculated
using Beers law as follows:
R
s
nsw
R
n
expCLAI (25)
where C is the extinction coefcient of light attenuation, 0.68
for fully grown plant (Sene, 1994). And the extinction coef-
cient is 0 for bare soil and 0.24 for the experimental vineyard
by the linear interpolation when the vegetative cover of vine-
yard is 0.35.
2.4.2.1. Canopy resistance. The canopy resistance r
p
s
is related
to environmental variables (Jarvis, 1976):
r
p
s

r
STmin
LAI
e

i
F
i
X
i

(26)
where the parameters are computed in Eqs. (8)(11).
2.4.2.2. Aerodynamic resistances. The aerodynamic resis-
tances r
a
a
and r
s
a
are calculated from the vertical wind prole
at the eld and the eddy diffusion coefcient. Above the
canopy height, the eddy diffusion coefcient (K) is given by
K ku

z d (27)
where u
*
is the friction velocity (m/s).
Beneath the canopy height, the exponential decrease of the
eddy diffusion coefcient (K) through the canopy is given as
follows:
K K
h
exp n 1
z
n
_ _ _ _
(28)
where K
h
is the eddy diffusion coefcient at the top of canopy
(m
2
/s), and n is the extinction coefcient of the eddy diffusion.
Brutsaert (1982) indicated that n = 2.5 when h
c
< 1 m; n = 4.25
whenh
c
> 10 m. Inour study, n = 2.6 by the linear interpolation
when h
c
is 1.5 m. K
h
is determined as follows:
K
h
ku

h
c
d (29)
The aerodynamic resistances r
a
a
and r
s
a
are obtained by
integrating the eddy diffusion coefcients from the soil
surface to the level of the preferred sink of momentum in
the canopy, and from there to the reference height (Shuttle-
worth and Gurney, 1990), as follows:
r
a
a

1
Ku

ln
z d
h
c
d
_ _

h
c
nK
h
exp n 1
z
0
d
h
c
_ _ _ _
1
_ _
(30)
r
s
a

h
c
expn
nK
h
exp
nz
0
0
h
c
_ _
exp n
z
0
d
h
c
_ _ _ _ _ _
(31)
The bulk boundary layer resistance of canopy is calculated
as (Shuttleworth and Wallace, 1985)
r
p
a

r
b
2LAI
(32)
where r
b
is the meanboundary layer resistance (s/m), takenfor
50 s/m (Brisson et al., 1998).
2.4.2.3. Soil surface resistance. The soil surface resistance (r
s
s
)
is the resistance to water vapor movement fromthe interior to
the surface of the soil, and is assumed to depend strongly on
the water content of an upper soil surface layer (u
s
). The soil
surface resistance was calculated as (Anadranistakis et al.,
2000)
r
s
s
r
s
s min
f u
s
(33)
where r
s
s min
is the minimum soil surface resistance, which
corresponds to soil moisture at eld capacity and its value is
assumed equal to 100 s/m (Camillo and Gurney, 1986; Thomp-
son et al., 1981), u
s
is the water content of an upper soil surface
layer (cm
3
/cm
3
).
According to Thompson et al. (1981), f(u
s
) is approximately
expressed as follows:
f u
s
2:5
u
F
u
s
_ _
1:5 (34)
2.4.3. Clumping model
The Clumping (C) model, based on SW model, separates the
soil surface into fractional areas inside and outside the
inuence of the canopy. This model can be expressed as
follows (Brenner and Incoll, 1997):
lET lE
s
lE
bs
lT
f C
s
c
PM
s
c
C
p
c
PM
p
c
1 f C
bs
c
PM
bs
c
(35)
where lE
s
is the latent heat of evaporation fromsoil under the
plant (W/m
2
), lE
bs
the latent heat of evaporation frombare soil
(W/m
2
), f is the fractional vegetative cover and is about 0.35
over the whole growing season. The terms used in Eq. (35) are
expressed as
PM
p
c

DA
c
rC
p
D Dr
p
a
A
s
c
=r
a
a
r
p
a

D g1 r
p
s
=r
a
a
r
p
a

(36)
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f o r e s t me t e o r ol o gy 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1633
PM
s
c

DA
c
rC
p
D Dr
s
a
A
p
c
=r
a
a
r
s
a

D g1 r
s
s
=r
a
a
r
s
a

(37)
PM
bs
c

DA
bs
c
rC
p
D=r
a
a
r
bs
a

D g1 r
bs
s
=r
a
a
r
bs
a

(38)
C
s
c
R
bs
c
R
p
c
R
s
c
R
a
c
=R
s
c
R
p
c
R
bs
c
1 f R
s
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
fR
bs
c
R
s
c
R
a
c
fR
bs
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
(39)
C
p
c
R
bs
c
R
s
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
=R
s
c
R
p
c
R
bs
c
1 f R
s
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
fR
bs
c
R
s
c
R
a
c
fR
bs
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
(40)
C
bs
c
R
s
c
R
p
c
R
bs
c
R
a
c
=R
s
c
R
p
c
R
bs
c
1 f R
s
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
fR
bs
c
R
s
c
R
a
c
fR
bs
c
R
p
c
R
a
c
(41)
R
s
c
D gr
s
a
gr
s
s
(42)
R
p
c
D gr
p
a
gr
p
s
(43)
R
bs
c
D gr
bs
a
gr
bs
s
(44)
R
a
c
D gr
a
a
(45)
where A
c
, A
p
c
, A
s
c
and A
bs
c
are energy available to evapotran-
spiration, to the plant, to soil under shrubandbare soil (W/m
2
),
respectively, r
bs
a
the eddy diffusion resistances fromin-canopy
heat exchange plane height to the soil surface (s/m), r
bs
s
the soil
surface resistance of bare soil (s/m).
2.4.3.1. Available energy. The incoming radiation (R
n
) is
divided into the radiation absorbed by the plant (R
p
n
) and the
radiation absorbed by the soil (R
s
n
). If the energy stored in the
plant is assumed to be negligible, then:
R
s
nc
R
n
e
CLAI= f
(46)
R
p
nc
R
n
R
s
nc
(47)
A
s
c
R
s
nc
G
s
(48)
A
bs
c
R
n
G
bs
(49)
A
p
c
R
p
nc
(50)
where R
p
nc
and R
s
nc
are the radiation absorbed by the plant and
the radiation absorbed by the soil (W/m
2
), respectively, G
s
and
G
bs
the ground heat ux under plant and bare soil (W/m
2
),
respectively, C is the extinctioncoefcient of light attenuation,
0.68 for fully grown plant (Sene, 1994).
2.4.3.2. Resistance for clumping model. The Clumping (C)
model, based on the SW model, newly introduces the
resistance of the bare soil surface (r
bs
s
) and the aerodynamic
resistance between the bare soil surface and the mean surface
owheight (r
bs
a
). The resistance of the bare soil surface (r
bs
s
) can
be calculated using Eqs. (33) and (34), but in which soil water
content is the water content of bare soil surface. The
aerodynamic resistance between the bare soil surface and
the mean surface ow height (r
bs
a
) can be calculated by
assuming that the bare soil surface is totally unaffected by
adjacent vegetation so that its aerodynamic resistance equals
r
b
a
, which is dened by
r
b
a
ln
z
m
=z
0
0

2
k
2
u
m

(51)
where z
m
is the mean surface ow height (m), which is
assumed 0.75h
c
(Brenner and Incoll, 1997), and u
m
is the wind
speed at z
m
(m/s).
Actual aerodynamic resistance (r
bs
a
) varies between r
b
a
and
r
s
a
. Since the form of the functional relationship of this change
is not known, r
bs
a
varied linearly between r
b
a
and r
s
a
as f varies
from 0 to 1 (Brenner and Incoll, 1997). Moreover, the
calculation of other resistance is similar to those of SW
model.
2.5. Evaluation of model performance
In this study, we decided to use four statistics following
recommendations by Legates and McCabe (1999) and they
are: the modied coefcient of efciency (E
1
), the modied
index of agreement (d
1
), mean absolute error (MAE) and the
mean (

P) between the methods. The modied coefcient (E
1
)
is dened as
E
1
1:0

N
i1
jQ
i
P
i
j

N
i1
jQ
i


Qj
(52)
where Q
i
is observed value,

Q the mean observed value, P
i
modeled value. The modied index of agreement (d
1
) is given
by
d
1
1:0

N
i1
jQ
i
P
i
j

N
i1
jQ
i


Qj jP
i


Qj
(53)
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Micro-climate parameters and reference
evapotranspiration
Mostly days of the growing season were observed with daily
values of R
s
and R
n
between 3.5029.90 MJ/(m
2
d) and 1.58
17.96 MJ/(m
2
d), and the ratio of R
n
0.410.80 (Fig. 2a).
Atmospheric conditions at the vineyard were very dry
and hot where average values of T
a
, D and u were between
6.8 and 25.1 8C, 0.14 and 2.16 kPa and 0.13 and 2.40 m/s,
respectively (Fig. 2b, c and d). The maximum ratio of R
n
was
measured in July and August, July and August were also the
months with the frequent precipitation, about 127 mm. The
maximum diurnal D and T
a
were 4.754 kPa and 36.3 8C.
Reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
), estimated by the Pen-
manMonteith equation (Allen et al., 1998), during the whole
growing season was 499 mm. Monthly reference ET
0
was
highest in June with 123 mm while reference ET
0
appeared to
be lowest in September with 59 mm (Fig. 2e).
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f or e s t me t e o r o l og y 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1634
3.2. Comparison of evapotranspiration measured by the
Bowen ratio-energy balance and soil water balance methods
Daily average evapotranspiration (ET) calculated over 7-day
periods using the soil water balance method (ET
WB
) was
compared with the corresponding daily average ET measured
by the Bowen ratio-energy balance method (ET
BREB
) as shown
in Fig. 3. The regression equation between ET
BREB
and ET
WB
was ET
BREB
= 0.9817ET
WB
(R
2
= 0.7664). The regression was not
statistically different from line 1:1 and the root mean squared
error (RMSE) between the two methods was 0.37 mm per day,
indicating a good agreement between the estimated ET by the
two methods. During the whole growing season, the LAI was
02 m
2
/m
2
and f was about 0.35, thus the measured ET
variation by the BREB method could be used as the standard
value to judge the estimated daily ET fromthe PM, SWand C
models. However, these results did not fully mean that the
BREB method was going to work properly on a 30-min periods,
because (1) this study did not take into account the effect of
shade of rows during the course of the day (Spano et al., 2000).
So, there were potential errors in the measurement of G on 30-
minperiod. However, ondaily basis, these errors were not very
important because daily cumulative values of G always were
close to zero. (2) Overestimation could be counterbalanced by
underestimation during daytime or the nighttime. It could
have important errors in the estimation of vineyard ET on 30-
min time intervals, especially under advection conditions.
Some reports also showed that most of the cases in which the
BREB method fails appear in the evening, during the night and
in the early morning or under advection condition (Unland
et al., 1996; Perez et al., 1999; Rana and Katerji, 2000). The
errors on 30-min period of BREB will be discussed based on
eddy covariance and heat pulse method in our further study.
Although the BREB method may have errors in the estimation
of vineyard ET on 30-min intervals, the reliable measured ET
by BREB could be provided adopting the certain criteria for
rejecting inaccurate data (Perez et al., 1999). Therefore, the
measured ET variation by the BREB method was still used as
the standard value to judge the estimated ET from the
evapotranspiration models. Many related studies also showed
Fig. 2 Daily value of solar radiation (R
s
), net radiation (R
n
),
air temperature (T
a
), vapor pressure deficit (D), wind speed
(u) and reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
) under different
rainfall and irrigation conditions during the growing
period in 2006.
Fig. 3 Comparison of average daily evapotranspiration
(ET) estimated by the Bowen ratio-energy balance and soil
water balance methods. *, data from 10 May to 6 October
2005; *, data from 19 May to 7 October 2006. ET
BREB
,
measured evapotranspiration by the Bowen ratio-energy
balance method, ET
WB
, measured evapotranspiration by
soil water balance method.
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f o r e s t me t e o r ol o gy 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1635
that the BREB method can be used to validate the estimated ET
by models (Alves and Pereira, 2000; Kato et al., 2004; Mo, 1998;
Mo et al., 2000; Ortega-Farias et al., 1995; Rana et al., 1997b).
3.3. Comparison of estimated evapotranspiration by three
models and measured by Bowen ratio-energy balance method
3.3.1. Comparison of diurnal estimated and measured
evapotranspiration
Comparison and correlation between estimated diurnal ET by
the PM, SW and C models over 30-min period and measured
ET by the Bowen ratio-energy balance during the growing
period in 2006 are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 and Table 1. Fig. 4
shows that diurnal pattern of the evapotranspiration esti-
mated by the three models was similar to that of the measured
ET by the BREB, but there existed differences in the
magnitudes. The estimated ET from the C model was close
to the observed ET by the BREB, but the ET fromthe PMmodel
overestimated signicantly, especially in the midday under
clear sky conditions. The slopes of regression equation during
the whole growing period between the estimated ET from the
PM model and measured ET by the BREB was 1.29, with MAE
of 56.95 W/m
2
, E
1
of 0.205 and d
1
of 0.686, indicating that the P
M model overestimated the evapotranspiration signicantly
(Table 1). Ortega-Farias et al. (2006) also indicated that the PM
model overestimated on 20-min time intervals compared to
the measured ET by the BERB. During the period between11:00
and16:00 inthe sunny days, the PMmodel estimated daytime
variation of evapotranspiration with maximal relative error of
20.5%, which was in line with our result. The possible reasons
for the evapotranspiration overestimated by PM model are
the following: (1) the dry layer formed in the soil surface under
intensive radiation and inadequate soil water content will
sharply increase the surface resistance and prevent soil water
from evaporation in the furrow-irrigated vineyard of arid
desert oasis. Although total ET slightly increases with the
intensive solar radiation and greater vapor pressure decit, it
will be lower than the evapotranspiration determined by
meteorological variables. Thus the PM model overestimates
evapotranspiration because the surface canopy resistance in
the model cannot perfectly include the integrated canopy and
soil surface resistances. (2) Because vineyard was irrigated by
furrow irrigation, the dry layer formed in the soil surface
between the ridges, thus the surface resistance in the ridge
Fig. 4 The diurnal patterns of estimated
evapotranspiration from the PM, SW and C models over
30-min period and measured evapotranspiration by the
BREB method. The set of data is the average values of three
typical sky clear days.
Fig. 5 Comparison of estimated evapotranspiration from
the PM, SW and C models over 30-min period and the
measured by the BREB method from 1 May to 7 October
2006. lET
PM
, lET
SW
and lET
C
represent the estimated
evapotranspiration from PM, SW and C models,
respectively. lET
BREB
represents the measured
evapotranspiration by the Bowen ratio-energy balance
method.
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f or e s t me t e o r o l og y 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1636
was far greater than the canopy resistance, which resulted in
the partition proportion of soil surface available energy into
the latent heat ux lower than that of canopy available energy
into the latent heat ux. However, the canopy resistance
model does not sufciently reect the change of leaf and soil
water condition and energy partition, leading to lower canopy
resistance, therefore, all available energy into the canopy in P
M model will overestimate the evapotranspiration. (3) The
vegetation cover of vineyard is very low, not meeting the
assumptions of the PM model.
However, some studies indicated the PM model under-
estimated ET in the early stage of crop, but the performance of
the PMmodel was goodinthe vigorous stage (Kato et al., 2004).
Suchdifference may also result fromthe canopy resistance and
soil water status. Inthe experiment of Katoet al. (2004), a sparse
canopy with full irrigation resulted in higher soil water content
and lower soil surface resistance, generally lower than the
canopy resistance. But in our experiment, because the furrow-
irrigated vineyard of arid desert oasis reduced the area of wet
soil, soil surface resistance (about 800 s/m of dry soil) was
generally higher than the canopy resistance (about 300 s/m
during the day), which resulted in ET difference fromthe result
of Katoet al. (2004). Stannard(1993) alsoindicatedthat whenthe
surface canopy resistance was much greater than the soil
surface resistance, the PMmodel severely underestimated the
evapotranspiration. Therefore, when the PM model is applied
to some specic crops and places, the relationship between the
canopy resistance in the model and environmental variables
and the value of canopy resistance will vary (Jarvis, 1976). For
sparsely vegetated canopies, the surface canopy resistance will
also include the effect of soil evaporation (Shuttleworth and
Wallace, 1985).
Since soil surface resistance was newly introducedinthe S
W and C models, thus the two models could better reect the
actual soil evaporation. The estimates of evapotranspiration
from the SW and C models were better than that from the P
M(Figs. 4 and 5 and Table 1). The slopes of regression equation
was 1.22, with MAE of 38.69 W/m
2
, E
1
of 0.460 and d
1
of 0.751,
indicating that the estimated ET by the SW model was
slightly greater than the measured ET. The estimates of
evapotranspiration from the C model were in good agreement
with the measurements, and the slopes of regressionequation
betweenthe estimated ET fromthe C model and the measured
ETby the BREBmethodwas 0.99, withMAE of 31.78 W/m
2
, E
1
of
0.556 andd
1
of 0.779. Therefore, the estimatedETfromthe SW
and C models, especially from the C model agreed well with
the measured ET.
The estimates of evapotranspiration from the SW and C
models agreed well with the measurements mainly because
these models acknowledged the differences between soil
evaporation and plant transpiration (0.57 and 0.54 of T/ET by
SW and C models, respectively). Some studies also indicated
that in the sparsely vegetated canopies, the SW and C model
estimates evapotranspiration well (Brenner and Incoll, 1997;
Domingo et al., 1999; Farahani and Bausch, 1995; Farahani and
Ahuja, 1996; Stannard, 1993; Teh et al., 2001). However, there
still existedthe difference betweenthe estimates fromthe two
models and the BREB measurements. Such difference may
result from the effect of canopy resistance and soil surface
resistance andthe inaccurate estimates of energy components
in the vegetation and soil. The reasons for the inaccurate
estimates of energy components are that: (1) the SW and C
models do not include the difference of the reectivity and
long-wave radiation between soils and canopy. Brenner and
Incoll (1997) indicated that the maximal difference of long-
wave radiation between the canopy and bare soil was about
100 W/m
2
. (2) The canopy intercept model for solar radiationis
simpler because the diurnal variation of shallowtime and area
of vineyard soil surface is not included (Zhang et al., 2001).
Brenner and Incoll (1997) assumed that the fractional shadow
area only corresponds to the vegetative cover when the sun
was directly overhand. At other times f will be larger, thus only
f usedinthe Cmodel is too simpler to describe bare soil surface
area, which also lead to the errors in the estimates of energy
components. (3) The interaction of different energy compo-
nents will affect energy ux greatly. Ham and Heilman (1991)
indicated that about 1/3 of the sensible heat ux is used for
cotton transpiration. Heilman et al. (1994) also had similar
result for grape vine inTexas, USA. Therefore, the predictedET
for the SW and C model has some differences from the
measured value by the BREB method.
Among the PM, SWandCmodels, the estimated ETby the
C model coincided closely with the BREB measurements,
which could be suitable for estimating the vineyard ET in the
region. Furthermore, the model can separate the evaporation
from soil and the transpiration from plants, thus the models
could be used to study the water use of grapevines.
3.3.2. Comparison of diurnal estimated and measured
evapotranspiration after a rainfall
The effect of rainfall on diurnal evapotranspiration was
simulated by the three models (Fig. 6). Fig. 6 shows that the
SW and C models tended to follow the general trend of
measured ET whereas the PM model underestimated the
midday ET. Because the only computational mechanisms the
PM model used to increase ET after a rainfall were a slightly
increased value of net radiation and a decreased value of
canopy resistance due to a decreased value of D. However, the
Table 1 Correlation between the estimated evapotranspiration of vineyard by three models over 30-min period and the
measured evapotranspiration by Bowen ratio-energy balance during the growing period in 2006
Model Regressive equation E
1
d
1
MAE
Q

P
PM lET
PM
= 1.29lET
BREB
0.205 0.686 56.95 61.69 100.88
SW lET
SW
= 1.22lET
BREB
0.460 0.751 38.69 61.69 90.38
C lET
C
= 0.99lET
BREB
0.556 0.779 31.78 61.69 73.65
lET
PM
, lET
SW
and lET
C
are the respective estimated evapotranspiration of vineyard from PM, SW and C models, lET
BREB
is the measured
evapotranspiration by the Bowen ratio-energy balance. E
1
is the modied coefcient of efciency; d
1
is the modied index of agreement; MAE is
the mean absolute error,

Q is the mean of lET measured by the BREB, and P is the mean of lET estimated from three models.
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f o r e s t me t e o r ol o gy 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1637
decreased value of D also decreased the aerodynamic term,
which tended to decrease ET (Stannard, 1993). The SW and C
models explicitly accounted for bare soil evaporation after a
rainfall, thus the performances of the SW and C models were
better.
3.3.3. Comparison of diurnal estimated and measured
evapotranspiration after a frost
The diurnal patterns of estimated ET fromthe PM, SWand C
models and measuredETby the BREBmethod, after a frost, are
shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that although the C model
generally performed well, its performance after a frost varied.
The C model (including the PM and SW models) severely
overestimated the measure value of evapotranspiration.
Because after a frost, plants might suffer chill injury,
characterized by destruction of the plants membrane and
cell framework, which inhibited or destroyed enzyme activa-
tion (Li et al., 2003), the actual value of stomata resistance was
virtually signicantly increased and the transpiration
decreased. However, the model value of stomata resistance
did not fully reect the change of grapevine stomata
resistance, which will underestimate stomata resistance
and overestimate ET value of grapevine in our study.
4. Conclusions
Insummary, the following conclusions canbe drawnfromthis
study:
(1) The Bowen ratio-energy balance method could provide
accurate estimates of vineyard ET from the arid desert
region when the Bowen ratio instrument was appropri-
ately installed on the corresponding equilibrium layer to
the evapotranspiration surface to avoid the possible heat
circulation between the studied area and adjacent dry
environment area.
(2) Generally, the diurnal variation of the estimated ET by the
PM, SW and C models was similar to those measured by
the BREB method. The estimated ET from the SW and C
models, especially from the C model agreed well with the
measured ET by the BREB, but the PM model signicantly
overestimated the ET. After a rainfall, the soil was wet, the
performances of the SW and C models were also good.
Therefore, among the three models, the C model was the
optimal model in simulating the vineyard ET in the arid
region of northwest China.
(3) Although the C model performed well after a rainfall, it
signicantly overestimated the ET after a frost because the
canopy resistance did not fully reect the dramatic
decrease of grapevine transpiration.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the grant support from nancial support
from the Chinese National Natural Science Fund (50679081,
50528909), the National High-Tech 863 Project of China
(2006AA100203) and PCSIRT (IRT0657).
r e f e r e n c e s
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop
evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water
requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Rome,
Italy.
Alves, I., Pereira, L.S., 2000. Modelling surface resistance from
climatic variables? Agricultural Water Management 42,
371385.
Anadranistakis, M., Liakatas, A., Kerkides, P., Rizos, S.,
Gavanosis, J., Poulovassilis, A., 2000. Crop water
requirements model tested for crops grown in Greece.
Agricultural Water Management 45, 297316.
Angus, D.E., Watts, P.J., 1984. EvapotranspirationHow good is
the Bowen ratio method? Agricultural Water Management
8, 135150.
Azevedo, P.V., Bernardo, B.S., Silva, V.P.R., 2003. Water
requirements of irrigated mango orchards in northeast
Brazil. Agricutural Water Management 58, 241254.
Fig. 6 The diurnal patterns of estimated
evapotranspiration from the PM, SW and C models over
30-min period and measured evapotranspiration by the
BREB method, following rainfall, when soil was wet. It
shows the average values of three measurements, which
are measured 2 days after each rainfall, respectively.
Fig. 7 The diurnal patterns of estimated
evapotranspiration from the PM, SW and C models over
30-min period and measured evapotranspiration by the
BREB method, following a frost. The set of data is the
average values of three consecutive days after a frost.
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f or e s t me t e o r o l og y 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1638
Brenner, A.J., Incoll, L.D., 1997. The effect of clumping and
stomatal response on evaporation from sparsely
vegetation shrublands. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
84, 187205.
Brisson, N., Itier, B., LHotel, J.C., Lorendeau, J.Y., 1998.
Parameterisation of the ShuttleworthWallace model to
estimate daily maximum transpiration for use in crop
models. Ecological Modeling 107, 159169.
Brotzge, J.A., Crawford, K.C., 2003. Examination of the surface
energy budget: a comparison of eddy correlation and Bowen
ratio measurements systems. Journal of Hydrometeorology
4, 160178.
Brutsaert, W., 1982. Evaporation into the Atmosphere. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.
Camillo, P.J., Gurney, R.J., 1986. A resistance parameter for bare
soil evaporation models. Soil Science 141, 95106.
Cellier, P., Brunet, Y., 1992. Fluxgradient relationships above
tall plant canopies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 58,
93117.
Domingo, F., Villagarca, L., Brennerb, A.J., Puigdefaa bregas, J.,
1999. Evapotranspiration model for semi-arid shrub-lands
tested against data from SE Spain. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 95, 6784.
Du, T.S., Kang, S.Z., Xia, G.M., Yang, X.Y., 2005. Response of
grapevine growth and water use to different partial root-
zone drying patterns under drip irrigation. Transactions of
the CSAE 21 (11), 4348.
Dugas, W.A., Fritschen, L.J., Gay, L.W., Held, A.A., Matthias, A.D.,
Reicosky, D.C., Steduto, P., Steiner, J.L., 1991. Bowen ratio,
eddy correlation, and portable chamber measurements of
sensible and latent heat ux over irrigated spring wheat.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 56, 120.
Farahani, H.J., Ahuja, L.R., 1996. Evapotranspiration of partial
canopy/residue-covered elds. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 39, 20512064.
Farahani, H.J., Bausch, W.C., 1995. Performance of
evapotranspiration models for maize-bare soil to closed
canopy. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 38, 10491059.
Federer, A.C., 1970. Measuring forest evapotranspiration-theory
and problems. Res. Pap. NE-165. Upper Darby, PA. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station. 25 p.
Gu, L., Shugart, H., Fuentes, J., Black, T., Shewchuk, S., 1999.
Micrometeorology, biophysical exchanges and NEE
decomposition in a two-storey boreal forestdevelopment
and test of an integrated model. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 94, 123148.
Guo, 1999. Experimental verication of a mechanistic model to
partition evapotranspiration into soil water and plant.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 93, 7993.
Ham, J.M., Heilman, J.L., 1991. Aerodynamic and surface
resistances affecting energy transport in a sparse crop.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 53, 267284.
Ham, J.M., Heilman, J.L., Lascano, R.J., 1991. Soil and canopy
energy balances of a row crop at partial cover. Agronomy
Journal 83, 744753.
Harris, P.P., Huntingford, C., Cox, P.M., Gash, J.H.C., Malhi, Y.,
2004. Effect of soil moisture on canopy conductance of
Amazonian rainforest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
122, 215227.
Heilman, J.L., McInnes, K.J., Savage, M.J., Gesch, R.W., Lascano,
R.J., 1994. Soil and canopy energy balance in a west Texas
vineyard. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 71, 99114.
Jarvis, P.G., 1976. The interpretation of the variation in leaf
water potential and stomatal conductance found in
canopies in the eld. Philosophical Transaction of
the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences
273, 593610.
Kang, S.Z., Su, X.L., Tong, L., Shi, P.Z., Yang, X.Y., Yukuo, A., Du,
T.S., Shen, Q.L., Zhang, J.H., 2004. The impacts of human
activities on the water-land environment of Shiyang River
Basin, an arid region in Northwest China. Hydrological
Sciences Journal 49 (3), 413427.
Kato, T., Kimura, R., Kamichika, M., 2004. Estimation of
evapotranspiration, transpiration ratio and water-use
efciency from a sparse canopy using a compartment
model. Agricultural Water Management 65, 173191.
Legates, D.R., McCabe, G.J., 1999. Evaluating the use of
goodness-of-t measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic
model validation. Water Resources Research 35, 233241.
Li, X.W., Zhang, S.F., Chen, S.F., 2003. The research results of
chilling resistance in plant and its application. Journal of
Biology 20 (3), 3233.
Mo, X.G., 1998. Modelling and validating water and energy
transfer in soilvegetationatmosphere system. Acta
Meteorologica Sinica 56, 323332.
Mo, X.G., Lin, Z.H., Liu, S.X., 2000. An improvement of the dual-
source model based on PenmanMonteith formula. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 31 (5), 611.
Monteith, J.L., Unsworth, M., 1990. Principles of Environmental
Physics, second edition. Butterworth-Heinemann,
London, 286 pp.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. Symposia of
the Society for Experimental Biology 19, 205234.
Nichols, W.D., 1992. Energy budgets and resistances to energy
transport in sparsely vegetated rangeland. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology 60, 221247.
Ortega-Farias, S., Cuenca, R.H., English, M., 1995. Hourly grass
evapotranspiration in modied maritime environment.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering-ASCE 121,
369373.
Ortega-Farias, S., Olioso, A., Antonioletti, R., Brisson, N., 2004.
Evaluation of the PenmanMonteith model for estimating
soybean evapotranspiration. Irrigation Science 23, 19.
Ortega-Farias, S., Olioso, A., Fuentes, S., Valdes, H., 2006. Latent
heat ux over a furrow-irrigated tomato crop using
PenmanMonteith equation with a variable surface canopy
resistance. Agricultural Water Management 82, 421432.
Perez, P.J., Castellvi, F., Ibanez, M., Rosell, J.I., 1999. Assessment
of reliability of Bowen ratio method for partitioning uxes.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 97, 141150.
Perrier, A., 1975a. Etude physique de le vapotranspiration dans
les conditions naturelles. I. Evaporation et bilan de nergie
des surfaces naturelles. Annales Agronomiques 26, 118.
Perrier, A., 1975b. Etude physique de le vapotranspiration dans
les conditions naturelles. III. Evapotranspiration re elle et
potentielle des couverts ve ge taux. Annales Agronomiques
26, 229243.
Rana, G., Katerji, N., 2000. Measurement and estimation of
actual evapotranspiration in the eld under
Mediterranean climate: a review. European Journal of
Agronomy 13, 125153.
Rana, G., Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., El Moujabber, M., 1997a. A
model for predicting actual evapotranspiration under soil
water stress in a Mediterranean region. Theoretical and
Applied Climatology 56, 4555.
Rana, G., Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., El Moujabber, M., Brisson,
N., 1997b. Validation of model of actual evapotranspiration
for water stressed soybeans. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 86, 215224.
Sene, K.J., 1994. Parameterisations for energy transfers
from a sparse vine crop. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 71, 118.
Shuttleworth, W.J., Gurney, R.J., 1990. The theoretical
relationship between foliage temperature and canopy
resistance in sparse crops. Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society 116, 497519.
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f o r e s t me t e o r ol o gy 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1639
Shuttleworth, W.J., Wallace, J.S., 1985. Evaporation from sparse
crops-an energy combination theory. Quarterly Journal of
the Royal Meteorological Society 111, 839855.
Spano, D., Snyder, R.L., Duce, P., Paw, U.K.T., 2000. Estimating
sensible and latent heat ux densities from grapevine
canopies using surface renewal. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 104, 171183.
Spittlehouse, D.L., Black, T.A., 1979. Determination of forest
evapotranspiration using Bowen ratio and eddy
correlation measurements. Journal of Applied Meteorology
18, 647653.
Spittlehouse, D.L., Black, T.A., 1980. Evaluation of the Bowen
ratio/energy balance method for determining forest
evapotranspiration. Atmosphere-Ocean 18, 98116.
Stannard, D.I., 1993. Comparison of PenmanMonteith
ShuttleworthWallace and modicd PriestleyTaylor
evapotranspiration models for wildland vegetation
in semiarid rangeland. Water Resources Research 29,
13791392.
Teh, C.B.S., Simmonds, L.P., Wheeler, T.R., 2001. Modelling the
partitioning of solar radiation capture and
evapotranspiration intercropping systems. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Tropical
Climatology, Meteorology and Hydrology TCMH-2001,
Brussels, Belgium.
Thompson, N., Barrie, I.A., Ayles, M., 1981. The meteorological
ofce rainfall and evaporation calculation system: MORECS.
Hydrological Memorandum No. 45.
Tourula, T., Heikinheino, M., 1998. Modelling
evapotranspiration from a barley eld over the growing
season. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 91, 237250.
Unland, H.E., Houser, P.R., Shuttleworth, W.J., Yang, Z.L., 1996.
Surface ux measurement and modeling at a semi-arid
Sonoran Desert site. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 82,
119153.
Van Bavel, C.H.M., Hillel, D.I., 1976. Calculating potential and
actual evaporation from a bare soil surface by simulation of
concurrent ow of water and heat. Agricultural Meteorology
17, 453476.
Wallace, J.S., Roberts, J.M., Sivakumar, M.V.K., 1990. The
estimation of transpiration from sparse dryland millet
using stomatal conductance and vegetation area indices.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 51, 3549.
Yunusa, I.A.M., Walker, R.R., Lu, P., 2004. Evapotranspiration
components from energy balance, sapow and
microlysimetry techniques for anirrigated vineyard ininland
Australia. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 127, 93107.
Zhang, J.S., Meng, P., Yin, C.J., 2001. Review on methods of
estimating evapotranspiration of plants. World Forest
Research 14 (2), 2328.
a g r i c ul t ur a l a nd f or e s t me t e o r o l og y 1 4 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 6 2 9 1 6 4 0 1640