Upload
palani
View
79
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Estimating Long-Term Average Monthly Evapotranspiration from Pan Evaporation Data at Seven Locations in Puerto Rico. Eric Harmsen, Antonio González Pérez Amos Winter. Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayag ü ez-Campus - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Estimating Long-Term Average Monthly Evapotranspiration from Pan Evaporation Data at Seven Locations
in Puerto Rico
Eric Harmsen,
Antonio González Pérez
Amos Winter
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Puerto Rico,
Mayagüez-Campus
This Material Is Based on Research Supported by University of Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station
SITUATION The pan evaporation method is a widely
used method for scheduling irrigation because it is simple and inexpensive
The University of Puerto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station is promoting its use with vegetable crops.
Crop Water Requirement (CWR)=
Crop Water Use (CWU)=
Potential Evapotranspiration (ET)=
Consumptive Use (CU)
Why is Knowing the Correct Why is Knowing the Correct Consumptive Use Important?Consumptive Use Important?
Inaccurate consumptive use Inaccurate consumptive use information may leads to:information may leads to:
• Loss of water by deep percolation and
surface runoff •Waste of energy
•Reduction in Yield ($$)• Leaching of chemicals to groundwater
Normalized Crop Yield as a Function of Normalized CU
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized CU
No
rmal
ized
Cro
p Y
ield
Procedure for Estimating Evapotranspiration from
Pan Data
ET = Kc ETo
ET = Crop evapotranspiration
Kc = Crop coefficient
ETo = Reference evapotranspiration
ET = Kc Kp Epan
ET = Crop evapotranspiration
Kc = Crop coefficient
Kp = Pan coefficient
Epan = Pan evaporation
A monthly average pan coefficient (Kp) can be estimated from the
monthly average values of Epan and ETo:
Kp = Epan / ETo
In 1989 the UPR Ag. Experiment Station published average monthly
values of Kp for seven Experimental Substations
UPR AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT SUBSTATION
NOAA CLIMATE DIVISIONS OF PUERTO RICO: 1, NORTH COASTAL; 2, SOUTH COASTAL; 3, NORTHERN
SLOPES; 4, SOUTHERN SLOPES; 5, EASTERN INTERIOR; AND 6, WESTERN INTERIOR.
The Kp data were based on:
• Average monthly pan data from 1960 to 1980.
• Average monthly ETo data based on the SCS Blaney-Criddle method.
The Problem
• Pan evaporation may have changed over the last 20 years.
• The SCS Blaney-Criddle method produces estimates of ETo of low
accuracy.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate historical pan evaporation data from seven experimental substations in Puerto Rico.
Update pan evaporation coefficients (Kp) values for the seven University of Puerto Rico Experimental Substations, based on the Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration.
Food and Agr. Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has recommended use of the Penman-Monteith (PM) method for estimating reference evapotranspiration(ETo) .
The PM method is the preferred method based on an ASCE study which compared twenty (20) ET estimation methods with weighing lysimeters.
The PM method performed better than all other methods.
ETo from the Penman Monteith Method
ETo
0.408 Rn G 900
T 273
u2 es ea
1 0.34 u2
.Δ = slope of the vapor pressure curve
Rn = net radiation
G = soil heat flux density
γ = psychrometric constant
T = mean daily air temperature
u2 = wind speed at 2 m height
es = the saturated vapor pressure and
ea = the actual vapor pressure.
FAO States:
“If some of the required weather data are missing or cannot be calculated, it is strongly recommended that the user estimate the missing climate data with one of the following procedures and use the FAO Penman-Monteith method for the calculation of ETo.”
“The use of an alternative ETo calculation procedure, requiring limited meteorological parameters, is less recommended."
RESULTS
Historical Pan Data
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Eva
po
rati
on
(in
ches
)
Lajas
Rio Piedras
Average Monthly Pan Evaporation with Time At Lajas and Río Piedras, Puerto Rico
3
4
5
6
7
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Eva
pora
tion
(inch
es)
Adjuntas
Gurabo
AVERAGE MONTHLY PAN EVAPORATION WITH TIME AT ADJUNTAS AND GURABO, PUERTO RICO
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Eva
po
rati
on
(in
ches
)Isabela
Corozal
Fortuna
Average Monthly Pan Evaporation with Time at Corozal, Isabela and Fortuna, Puerto Rico
LatitudeElev. (m)
Regression Coefficient R2
Significant at the 5%
level Trend
Gurabo 18˚ 15’ N 480.029 0.55 Yes Increasing
Adjuntas 18˚ 11’ N 5490.021 0.47 Yes Increasing
Corozal 18˚ 20’ N 1950.010 0.11 No Increasing
Isabela 18˚ 28’ N 126-0.008 0.08 No Decreasing
Fortuna 18˚ 01’ N 21-0.015 0.10 No Decreasing
Río Piedras 18˚ 24’ N 100-0.019 0.28 Yes Decreasing
Lajas 18˚ 03’ N 27-0.055 0.81 Yes Decreasing
Results of Pan Evaporation Trend Analysis
Reevaluation of the Pan Coefficient
Kp = Epan / ETo
01
23
45
67
89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Ev
ap
ora
tio
n (
inc
he
s)
Adjuntas
Corozal
Fortuna
Gurabo
Isabela
Lajas
Rio Piedras
LONG-TERM AVERAGE MONTHLY PAN EVAPORATION FOR THE SEVEN EXPERIMENTAL SUBSTATIONS IN
PUERTO RICO
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
ET
o (
inc
he
s)
Adjuntas
Corozal
Fortuna
Gurabo
Isabela
Lajas
Rio Piedras
LONG-TERM AVERAGE MONTHLY REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FOR THE SEVEN EXPERIMENTAL SUBSTATIONS. REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION WAS
ESTIMATED USING THE COMPUTER PROGRAM PR-ET (HARMSEN AND GONZÁLEZ PÉREZ, 2002).
Pan Coefficients (Kp) based on 1981 through 2000 pan
evaporation data, for seven experimental substations.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg
Adjuntas 0.82 0.92 0.85 0.89 0.87 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.82 0.85
Corozal 0.91 0.95 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.89 0.88 0.95 0.88 0.88
Fortuna 0.63 0.69 0.66 0.68 0.73 0.72 0.69 0.67 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.64 0.68
Gurabo 0.67 0.76 0.70 0.72 0.75 0.72 0.73 0.72 0.77 0.74 0.75 0.70 0.73
Isabela 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.78 0.83 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.87 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.84
Lajas 1.07 1.18 1.06 1.06 1.01 1.10 1.12 1.04 0.94 1.03 1.07 1.09 1.06
Río Piedras 0.91 0.93 0.83 0.82 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.88
Average 0.83 0.90 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.84 0.85
METHOD LIMITATIONS
ET Epan
Possible differences in loss of water from a water surface and from a cropped surface:
• Reflection of solar radiation from the water surface might be different than the assumed 23% for the grass reference surface.• Storage of heat within the pan can be appreciable and may cause significant evaporation during the night while most crops transpire only during the daytime. • There are differences in turbulence, temperature and humidity of the air immediately above the respective surfaces; and • Heat transfer occurring through the sides of the pan can affect the energy balance.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
3/1 3/31 4/30 5/30
Date
ET
c (m
m)
ETpan
ETc Penman-Monteith
ETc (long-term avg)
Sweet Pepper Crop – Isabela, PR
Seasonal ET
Penman-Monteith 403 mm(Preferred Method)
Pan 365 mm(Difference = -10%)
Long-term AveragePenman-Monteith 451 mm (Difference = +12%)
CONCLUSION
• Historical pan evaporation data were evaluated to determine if increasing or decrease trends exist for data from the seven UPR Experimental Substations.
Significant decreasing pan evaporation was observed at Lajas and Río Piedras.
Significant increasing pan evaporation was observed at Gurabo and Adjuntas.
No significant trends were observed at Fortuna, Isabela and Corozal.
CONCLUSIONS – CONT.
• A significant difference was found to exist between the mean Kp calculated with pan evaporation data from 1960-1980 and 1981-2000.
• The mean of Kp values based on 1981-2000 data was approximately 5% higher than the mean of the Kp values based on 1960-1980 data.
CONCLUSIONS – CONT.
• Errors in the estimated seasonal ET of -10% and +12% were obtained for a sweet pepper crop when using the pan-based and long term Penman-Monteith ET, Respectively.
• The magnitude of these errors could lead to substantial reductions in yield and, in the latter case, leaching of chemicals to the groundwater.