Sensitivity Analysis of ETo for Five Current Models Using Monte-Carlo Simulation Case study: Bojnourd Synoptic Station

آب و خاک

Article 4, Volume 28, Issue 6, January 2015, Pages 1126-1136   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v0i0.27969

Authors

M. Makari^* ; B. Ghahraman; S.H. Sanaeinejad

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

The objective of this study is to analyze the sensitivity of ETo for five models including FAO-Penman-Monteith, modified Blaney-Criddle, Hargreaves, Hargreaves-Samani and Priestley –Taylor. Daily meteorological data of Bojnourd synoptic station including air temperature, relative humidity, actual duration sunshine and wind velocity were used for sensitivity analysis of five models. In order to produce random data at a specific range, Monte-Carlo simulation was performed. Annual and seasonal were calculated to indicate the sensitivity of ETo in simultaneous variations of meteorological variables in each model.The results obtained in this study showed that the sensitivity of in simultaneous variations of meteorological variables is higher in summer. In all models, the most sensitivity was seen in summer and spring and the least sensitivity was occurred in autumn and winter. Among the studied models, FAO-PM and BC models had the most annual sensitivity and PT model had the least annual sensitivity. All of the models had fairly high correlation coefficient with FAO-PM model but the quantity of and was different in each model. BC model had the most and the least and was seen in and PT. According to the findings in this study, it can be concluded that SH model is fairly suitable for estimation of in synoptic station.

Keywords

Reference evapotranspiration; sensitivity analysis; Sensitivity Coefficient; Monte-Carlo Simulation

References

1- زارع ابیانه ح.، بیات ورکشی م.، سبزی پرور ع.، معروفی ص. و قاسمی ع. 1389. ارزیابی روش های مختلف برآورد تبخیر و تعرق گیاه مرجع و پهنه بندی آن در ایران. مجله پژوهش های جغرافیایی طبیعی. 74: 95-109.

2- سبزی پرور ع.، تفضلی ف.، زارع ابیانه ح.، بانژاد ح.، غفوری م.، موسوی بایگی م. و مریانجی ز. 1387. ارزیابی حساسیت الگو های مختلف تبخیر و تعرق مرجع (ETo) به سیگنال های تغییر اقلیم در اقلیم سرد نیمه خشک همدان. مجله علوم و فنون کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی. 46: 581-592.

3- Ambas V.Th., and Baltas E. 2012.Sensitivity of analysis of different evapotranspiration methods using a new sensitivity coefficient. Global NEST, 14(3): 335-343.

4- Bakhtiari B., and Liaghat A.M. 2011. Seasonal sensitivity analysis for climatic variables of ASCE-Penman-Monteith model in a semi-arid climate. Agriculture Science Technology, 13: 1135-1145.

5- Beven K. 1979. A sensitivity analysis of the Penman–Monteith actual evapotranspiration estimates. Hydrology, 44: 169–190.

6- Blaney H.F., and Criddle W.D. 1950. Determining Water Requirements in Irrigated Area from Climatological Irrigation Data. US Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Technical Paper, 96: 48-51.

7- Bois B., Pieri P., Leeuwen C., wold L., Huard F., Gaudillere J., and Saur E. 2007. Using remotely sensed solar radiation data for reference evapotranspiration estimation at a daily time step. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 148(4): 619-630.

8- Coleman G., and DeCoursey D.G. 1976. Sensitivity and model variance analysis applied to some evaporation and evapotranspiration models. Water Resources Research, 12 (5): 873–879.

9- Dyck S. 1983. Overview on the present status of the concepts of water balance models. New Approaches in Water Balance Computations. Proceedings of the Hamburg Workshop, IAHS Publication, 148: 3–19.

10- Estevez J., Gavil P., and Berengena J. 2009. Sensitivity analysis of a Penman–Monteith type equation to estimate reference evapotranspiration in southern Spain. Hydrology, Process. 23: 3342-3353.

11- Gong L., Yu C., Chen D., Halldin S., and Chen Y. 2006. Sensitivity of the Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration to key climatic variables in the Changjiang(Yangtze River) basin. Hydrology, 329: 620-629.

12- Goyal R.K. 2004. Sensitivity of evapotranspiration to global warming: a case study of arid zone of Rajasthan (India). Agricultural Water Management, 69: 1–11.

13- Guitjens J.C. 1982. Models of Alfalfa Yield and Evapotranspiration. Irrigation and Drainage Division., Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 108(IR3): 212–222.

14- Harbeck Jr. G.E. 1962. A Practical Field Technique for Measuring Reservoir Evaporation Utilizing Mass-transfer Theory. US Geological Survey, 101–105.

15- Hobbins M.T., Ramirez J.A., and Brown T.C. 2001. The complementary relationship in estimation of regional evapotranspiration: an enhanced advection-aridity model. Water Resources Research, 37 (5): 1389–1403.

16- Hou L.G., Zou S.B., Xiao H.L., and Yang Y.G. 2013. Sensitivity of the reference evapotranspiration to key climatic variables during the growing season in the Ejina oasis northwest China. SpringerPlus, 2: 1-6.

17- Hupet F., and Vanclooster M. 2001. Effect of the sampling frequency of meteorological variables on the estimation of the reference evapotranspiration. Hydrology, 243:192–204.

18- Irmak S., Payero J., Martin D.L., Irmak A., and Howell T.A. 2006. Sensitivity analysis and sensitivity coefficients of standardized daily ASCE-Penman-Monteith equation. American Society of Civil Engineers, 132(6): 564-578.

19- Ley T.W., Hill R.W., and Jensen D.T. 1994. Errors in Penman–Wright alfalfa reference evapotranspiration estimates: I. Model sensitivity analysis. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 37 (6): 1853–1861.

20- Liquiao L., Lijunan L., Li Z., Jiuyi L., and Bin L. 2008. Sensitivity of Penman-Monteith Reference Crop Evapotranspiration in Tao’er River Basin of Northeastern China. China of Geology Society, 18(4): 340-347.

21- Liu H., Zhang R., and Li Y. 2014. Sensitivity analysis of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to climate change in Beijing, China. Desalination and water Treatment, 52: 2799-2804.

22- McCuen R.H. 1973. The role of sensitivity analysis in hydrologic modeling. Hydrology, 18: 37–53.

23- McKenney M.S., and Rosenberg N.J. 1993. Sensitivity of some potential evapotranspiration estimation methods to climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 64: 81–110.

24- Penman H.L. 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 193: 120–145.

25- Piper B. 1989. Sensitivity of Penman estimates of evaporation to errors input data. Agriculture and Water Management, 15: 279–300.

26- Priestley C.H.B., and Taylor R.J. 1972. On the assessment of the surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Monthly Weather Review, 100: 81–92.

27- Qiu G., Yanob T., and Momiic K. 1998. An improved methodology to measure evaporation from bare soil based on comparison of surface temperature with a dry soil surface. Hydrology, 210: 93–105.

28- Rana G., and Katerji N. 1998. A measurement based sensitivity analysis of the Penman–Monteith actual evapotranspiration model for crops of different height and in contrasting water status. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 60: 141–149.

29- Saxton K.E. 1975. Sensitivity analysis of the combination evapotranspiration equation. Agriculture and Meteorology, 15: 343–353.

30- Singh V.P., and Xu C.Y. 1997. Sensitivity of mass transfer-based evaporation equations to errors in daily and monthly input data. Hydrological Processes, 11: 1465–1473.

31- Thornthwaite C.W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review, 38: 55–94.

32- Xu C.Y., and Singh V.P. 2005. Evaluation of three complementary relationship evapotranspiration models by water balance approach to estimate actual regional evapotranspiration in different climatic regions. Hydrology, 308: 105–121.

33- Xu Z.X., and Li J.Y. 2003. A distributed approach for estimating basin evapotranspiration: comparison of the combination equation and the complementary relationship approaches. Hydrological Process, 17: 1509–1523.