Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Sol-Gel Coatings on the Phosphorus (P) Adsorption Capacity of Calcareous Materials for Use in Water Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Streamflow Consumption vs. Climate Change in the Evolution of Discharge in the Tarim River Basin, Northwest China
Previous Article in Journal
Effective Purification of Eutrophic Wastewater from the Beverage Industry by Microbubbles
Previous Article in Special Issue
Future Climate Change Impact on the Nyabugogo Catchment Water Balance in Rwanda
Article

Optimal Alternative for Quantifying Reference Evapotranspiration in Northern Xinjiang

by 1,2,3 and 1,3,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
2
School of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
National Field Scientific Observation and Research Station of Akesu Oasis Farmland Ecosystem, Aksu 843017, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Hongbo Ling
Water 2022, 14(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010001
Received: 24 November 2021 / Revised: 7 December 2021 / Accepted: 10 December 2021 / Published: 21 December 2021
Accurate estimation of reference evapotranspiration is a key step in irrigation and water resources planning. The Penman Monteith (FAO56-PM) formula recommended by FAO56-PM is the standard for calculating the reference evapotranspiration. However, the FAO56-PM model is limited in the observation of meteorological variables, so it is necessary to choose an alternative ET0 model which requires less meteorological data. Based on the daily climate data of eight meteorological stations in northern Xinjiang from 2000 to 2020, seven empirical models (Hargreaves, Berti, Dorji, Dalton, Meyer, WMO, Albrecht) and four optimization algorithms (RF model, LS-SVR model, Bi-LSTM model and GA-BP model) combined with seven different parameters were evaluated comprehensively. The results show that the accurate of the empirical model based on temperature is obviously better than the empirical model based on air mass transport. The annual and multi-year alternative ET0 models of different input parameter combinations are: LS-SVR1, RF2, LS-SVR3, LS-SVR4, GA-BP5, LS-SVR6, GA-BP7. It can be used as a substitute for the reference evapotranspiration model without relevant meteorological data. Only the LS-SVR6 model and GA-BP7 model are recommended as the best alternative models for northern Xinjiang reference evapotranspiration at daily, monthly and seasonal scales. View Full-Text
Keywords: reference evapotranspiration; empirical model; regression prediction algorithms; optimal alternative reference evapotranspiration; empirical model; regression prediction algorithms; optimal alternative
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiao, P.; Hu, S.-J. Optimal Alternative for Quantifying Reference Evapotranspiration in Northern Xinjiang. Water 2022, 14, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010001

AMA Style

Jiao P, Hu S-J. Optimal Alternative for Quantifying Reference Evapotranspiration in Northern Xinjiang. Water. 2022; 14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiao, Ping, and Shun-Jun Hu. 2022. "Optimal Alternative for Quantifying Reference Evapotranspiration in Northern Xinjiang" Water 14, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010001

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop