Advertisement

Sensitivity of Reference Evapotranspiration and Soil Evaporation to Climate Change in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

  • Mehmet AydınEmail author
  • Tsugihiro Watanabe
  • Selim Kapur
Chapter
Part of the The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science book series (APESS, volume 18)

Abstract

Climate data generated by a regional climate model (RCM) under the A2 scenario were used to quantify the evaporative demand of the atmosphere in the Mediterranean region of Turkey in a baseline period (1994–2003) and the future (2070–2079). The daily reference evapotranspiration and bare soil evaporation were computed using the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith and E-DiGOR models, respectively, for both periods. The sensitivity of Penman-Monteith type equations to the major climatic variables was determined. Based on decadal averages, solar radiation, air temperature, and wind-speed were projected to increase from 16.084 to 16.324 MJ m−2 day−1, from 19.3 °C to 20.7 °C, and from 0.75 to 0.77 m s−1 respectively, by the period of 2070–2079 compared with the baseline period. By contrast, the relative humidity is expected to decrease from 68.1 to 67.5% (equivalent to a 0.9% reduction). The reference evapotranspiration (Eto) and potential soil evaporation (Ep) are projected to increase by 92.0 mm year−1 and 68.6 mm year−1 respectively by the 2070s. Conversely, the actual soil evaporation (Ea) is expected to decrease by 49.6 mm year−1 by the same period due to the decrease in rainfall and soil wetness.

The reference evapotranspiration was more sensitive to the net radiation in all seasons; followed by the air temperature in the summer months, and by the relative humidity in the winter months under both the present and future conditions. In terms of the sensitivity coefficients, the Ep responded better to the changes in climatic variables than the Eto. The sensitivity of Ep to the key climatic elements varied with the seasons: the net radiation was the most causative variable in the summer, whereas the air temperature and relative humidity were the most influential variables in the winter. The mean sensitivity coefficients for air temperature and wind-speed are projected to increase from 0.40 to 0.45 and from 0.15 to 0.19 respectively by the period of 2070–2079. A slight change in the sensitivity coefficient for relative humidity is projected. This could be explained by the expected air temperature rise and the increase in wind-speed, followed by a negligible decrease in humidity, which can increase the Ep rate. By contrast, the relative contribution of the net radiation to Ep would decrease in the future with a coefficient decreasing from 0.84 to 0.80. This outcome can be attributed to the proportionally higher increases in air temperature and wind-speed in the future, which would reduce the relative portion of the net radiation.

Keywords

Climate change Evapotranspiration Sensitivity coefficients Soil evaporation 

References

  1. Agam N, Berliner PR, Zangvil A, Ben-Dor E (2004) Soil water evaporation during the dry season in an arid zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 109:16103.Google Scholar
  2. Allen RG (2011) Skin layer evaporation to account for small precipitation events – An enhancement to the FAO-56 evaporation model. Agricultural Water Management 99(1):8–18.Google Scholar
  3. Allen RG, Smith M, Perrier A, Pereira LS (1994) An update for the definition of reference evapotranspiration. ICID Bulletin 43:92.Google Scholar
  4. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage paper No. 56. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  5. Ambas VTh, Baltas E (2012) Sensitivity analysis of different evapotranspiration methods using a new sensitivity coefficient. Global NEST Journal 14(3):335–343.Google Scholar
  6. Aydın M (2008) A model for evaporation and drainage investigations at ground of ordinary rainfed-areas. Ecological Modelling 217(1–2):148–156.Google Scholar
  7. Aydın M, Keçecioglu SF (2010) Sensitivity analysis of evaporation module of E-DiGOR model. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 34(6):497–507.Google Scholar
  8. Aydın M, Yang SL, Kurt N, Yano T (2005) Test of a simple model for estimating evaporation from bare soils in different environments. Ecological Modelling 182:91–105.Google Scholar
  9. Aydın M, Yano T, Evrendilek F, Uygur V (2008) Implications of climate change for evaporation from bare soils in a Mediterranean environment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 140:123–130.Google Scholar
  10. Aydın M, Jung YS, Yang JE, Lee HI (2014) Long-term water balance of a bare soil with slope in Chuncheon, South Korea. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 38:80–90.Google Scholar
  11. Aydın M, Jung YS, Yang JE, Kim SJ, Kim KD (2015) Sensitivity of soil evaporation and reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables in South Korea. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 39:652–662.Google Scholar
  12. Bellot J, Chirino E (2013) Hydrobal: An eco-hydrological modelling approach for assessing water balances in different vegetation types in semi-arid areas. Ecological Modelling 266:30–41.Google Scholar
  13. Beven K (1979) A sensitivity analysis of the Penman–Monteith actual evapotranspiration estimates. Journal of Hydrology 44:169–190.Google Scholar
  14. Bittelli M, Ventura F, Campbell GS, Snyder RL, Gallegati F, Pisa PR (2008) Coupling of heat, water vapor, and liquid water fluxes to compute evaporation in bare soils. Journal of Hydrology 362(3–4):191–205.Google Scholar
  15. Brown RW, Oosterhuis DM (1992) Measuring plant and soil water potentials with thermocouple psychrometers: Some concerns. Agronomy Journal 84:78–86.Google Scholar
  16. Coleman G, DeCoursey DG (1976) Sensitivity and model variance analysis applied to some evaporation and evapotranspiration models. Water Resources Research 12(5):873–879.Google Scholar
  17. Dhungana P, Eskridge KM, Weiss A, Baenziger PS (2006) Designing crop technology for a future climate: An example using response surface methodology and the CERES-Wheat model. Agricultural Systems 87:63–79.Google Scholar
  18. Ebrahimpour M, Ghahreman N, Orang M (2014) Assessment of climate change impacts on reference evapotranspiration and simulation of daily weather data using SIMETAW. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 140(2), Article No: 04013012.Google Scholar
  19. Estévez J, Gavilán P, Berengena J (2009) Sensitivity analysis of a Penman–Monteith type equation to estimate reference evapotranspiration in southern Spain. Hydrological Processing 23:3,342–3,353.Google Scholar
  20. Fujihara Y, Tanaka K, Watanabe T, Nagano T, Kojiri T (2008) Assessing the impacts of climate change on the water resources of the Seyhan River Basin in Turkey: Use of dynamically downscaled data for hydrologic simulations. Journal of Hydrology 353:33–48.Google Scholar
  21. Gao G, Xu CY, Chen D, Singh VP (2012) Spatial and temporal characteristics of actual evapotranspiration over Haihe River basin in China estimated by the complementary relationship and the Thornthwaite water balance model. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 26(5):655–669.Google Scholar
  22. Giorgi F, Lionello P (2008) Climate Change Projections for the Mediterranean Region. Global Planet Change 63:90–104.Google Scholar
  23. Gong L, Xu C, Chen D, Halldin S, Chen YD (2006) Sensitivity of the Penman–Monteith reference evapotranspiration to key climatic variables in the Changjiang (Yangtze River) basin. Journal of Hydrology 329:620–629.Google Scholar
  24. Goyal RK (2004) Sensitivity of evapotranspiration to global warming: A case study of arid zone of Rajasthan (India). Agricultural Water Management 69:1–11.Google Scholar
  25. Herrnegger M, Nachtnebel HP, Haiden T (2012) Evapotranspiration in high alpine catchments – an important part of the water balance. Hydrological Research 43(4):460–475.Google Scholar
  26. Huo Z, Dai X, Feng S, Kang S, Huang G (2013) Effect of climate change on reference evapotranspiration and aridity index in arid region of China. Journal of Hydrology 492:24–34.Google Scholar
  27. Hupet F, Vanclooster M (2001) Effect of the sampling frequency of meteorological variables on the estimation of the reference evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology 243:192–204.Google Scholar
  28. IPCC (2013) Summary for Policymakers. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Irmak S, Payero JO, Martin DL, Irmak A, Howell TA (2006) Sensitivity analyses and sensitivity coefficients of standardized daily ASCE Penman-Monteith equation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 132(6):564–578.Google Scholar
  30. Kimura F, Kitoh A (2007) Downscaling by Pseudo Warming Method. Final Report of the ICCAP, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  31. Kitoh A, Hosaka M, Adachi Y, Kamiguchi K (2005) Future projections of precipitation characteristics in East Asia simulated by the MRI CGCM2. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 22:467–478.Google Scholar
  32. Kwon, H, Choi M (2011) Error assessment of climate variables for FAO-56 reference evapotranspiration. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 112:81–90.Google Scholar
  33. Li ZL, Li ZJ, Xu ZX, Zhou X (2013) Temporal variations of reference evapotranspiration in Heihe River basin of China. Hydrology Research 44(5):904–916.Google Scholar
  34. McCuen RH (1974) A sensitivity and error analysis of procedures used for estimating evaporation. Water Resources Bulletin 10(3):486–498.Google Scholar
  35. Moratiel R, Duran JM, Snyder RL (2010) Responses of reference evapotranspiration to changes in atmospheric humidity and air temperature in Spain. Climate Research 44:27–40.Google Scholar
  36. Pockley P (2009) The evaporation paradox. Australasian Science Nov/Dec. 2009, 12–13.Google Scholar
  37. Rana G, 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.Google Scholar
  38. Roderick ML, Farquhar GD (2002) The cause of decreased pan evaporation over the past 50 years. Science 298:1410–1411.Google Scholar
  39. Roderick ML, Farquhar GD (2004) Changes in Australian pan evaporation from 1970 to 2002. International Journal of Climatology 24:1077–1090.Google Scholar
  40. Romano E, Giudici M (2009) On the use of meteorological data to assess the evaporation from a bare soil. Journal of Hydrology 372(1–4):30–40.Google Scholar
  41. Sanchez-Gomez E, Somot S, Mariotti A (2009) Future changes in the Mediterranean water budget projected by an ensemble of regional climate models. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L21401.Google Scholar
  42. Saxton KE (1975) Sensitivity analysis of the combination evapotranspiration equation. Agricultural Meteorology 15:343–353.Google Scholar
  43. Tabari H, Hosseinzadeh-Talaee P (2014) Sensitivity of evapotranspiration to climatic change in different climates. Global Planet Change 115:16–23.Google Scholar
  44. Tao F, Yokozawa M, Hayashi Y, Lin E (2003) Terrestrial water cycle and the impact of climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95:203–215.Google Scholar
  45. Terink W, Immerzeel WW, Droogers P (2013) Climate change projections of precipitation and reference evapotranspiration for the Middle East and Northern Africa until 2050. International Journal of Climatology 33(14):3055–3072.Google Scholar
  46. US-NAS and Royal Society (2014) Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. The primary writing team: Eric Wolff FRS, Inez Fung, Brian Hoskins FRS, John Mitchell FRS, Tim Palmer FRS, Benjamin Santer, John Shepherd FRS, Keith Shine FRS, Susan Solomon, Kevin Trenberth, John Walsh, Don Wuebbles).Google Scholar
  47. Vanderborght J, Graf A, Steenpass C, Scharnagl B, Prolingheuer N, Herbst M, Franssen HJH, Vereecken H (2010) Within-Field Variability of Bare Soil Evaporation Derived from Eddy Covariance Measurements. Vadose Zone Journal 9(4):943–954.Google Scholar
  48. Wallace JS, Jackson NA, Ong CK (1999) Modelling soil evaporation in an agroforestry system in Kenya. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 94:189–202.Google Scholar
  49. Xiao X, Horton R, Sauer TJ, Heitman JL, Ren T (2011) Cumulative soil water evaporation as a function of depth and time. Vadose Zone Journal 10(3):1016–1022.Google Scholar
  50. Xie H, Zhu X (2013) Reference evapotranspiration trends and their sensitivity to climatic change on the Tibetan Plateau (1970–2009). Hydrological Processes 27(25):3685–3693.Google Scholar
  51. Xing W, Wang W, Shao Q, Peng S, Yu Z, Yong B, Taylor J (2014) Changes of reference evapotranspiration in the Haihe River Basin: Present observations and future projection from climatic variables through multi-model ensemble. Global Planet Change 115:1–15.Google Scholar
  52. Xu YP, Pal SL, Fu GT, Tian Y, Zhang XJ (2014) Future potential evapotranspiration changes and contribution analysis in Zhejiang Province, East China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119(5):2,174–2,192.Google Scholar
  53. Yang XL, Ren LL, Singh VP, Liu XF, Yuan F, Jiang SH, Yong B (2012) Impacts of land use and land cover changes on evapotranspiration and runoff at Shalamulun River watershed, China. Hydrological Research 43(1–2):23–37.Google Scholar
  54. Yano T, Aydın M, Haraguchi T (2007) Impact of climate change on irrigation demand and crop growth in a Mediterranean environment of Turkey. Sensors 7(10):2297–2315.Google Scholar
  55. Yukimoto S, Noda A, Kitoh A, Sugi M, Kitamura Y, Hosaka M, Shibata K, Maeda S, Uchiyama T (2001) A new Meteorological Research Institute coupled GCM (MRI-CGCM2) – its climate and variability. Papers in Meteorology and Geophysics 51:47–88.Google Scholar
  56. Zhang XC, Liu WZ (2005) Simulating potential response of hydrology, soil erosion, and crop productivity to climate change in Changwu tableland region on the Loess Plateau of China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 131:127–142.Google Scholar
  57. Zhang Q, Xu CY, Chen XH (2011) Reference evapotranspiration changes in China: Natural processes or human influences? Theoretical and Applied Climatology 103(3–4):479–488.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet Aydın
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tsugihiro Watanabe
    • 2
  • Selim Kapur
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science and Plant NutritionMustafa Kemal UniversityAntakyaTurkey
  2. 2.Regional Planning Graduate School of Global Environmental StudiesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Soil Science and Plant NutritionÇukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations