Abstract
The present study used Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to characterize the sensitivity of the FAO-56 Penman–Monteith reference evapotranspiration (ET0) model to the climate variables used in its application. The analysis was performed separately for four climate stations representing different climate regimes of India. Sensitivity indices (defined by the partial rank correlation coefficient) representing the sensitivity of ET0 values to the various input variables were obtained as output from the analysis. Wind speed was found to be the dominant input variable at all stations except the humid one where net radiation (R n ) appeared to be crucial. The results of this study while emphasizing the need for accurate measurement of these variables for reliable estimates of ET0 to be obtained, also provide information for evaluating the impacts of future climate changes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ahn H (1996) Sensitivity of correlated input variables and propagated errors in evapotranspiration estimates from a humid region. Water Resour Res 32(8):2507–2516
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. In: Food and agricultural organization of the United Nations (FAO) irrigation and drain. Paper No. 56, Rome, Italy
Beven K (1979) A sensitivity analysis of the Penman-Monteith actual evapotranspiration estimates. J Hydrol 44:169–190
Coleman G, DeCoursey DG (1976) Sensitivity and model variance analysis applied to some evaporation and evapotranspiration models. Water Resour Res 12(5):873–879
Debnath S, Adamala S, Raghuwanshi NS (2015) Sensitivity analysis of FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method for different agro-ecological regions of India. Environ Process 2(4):689–704
Droogers P, Allen RG (2002) Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions. Irrig Drain Syst 16:33–45
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. J Hydrol 329(3–4):620–629
Goyal RK (2004) Sensitivity of evapotranspiration to global warming: A case study of arid zone of Rajasthan (India). Agr Water Manage 69:1–11
Hupet F, Vanclooster M (2001) Effect of the sampling frequency of meteorological variables on the estimation of the reference evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 243:192–204
Irmak S, Payero JO, Martin DL, Irmak A, Howell TA (2006) Sensitivity analysis and sensitivity coefficients of standardized daily ASCE Penman-Monteith equation. J Irrig Drain Eng 132(6):564–578
Jankauskas L, McLafferty S (1996) BESTFIT, distribution fitting software by Palisade Corporation. In: Charnes JM, Morrice DJ, Brunner DT, Swain JJ (eds) Proceedings of the 1996 Winter simulation conference, pp 551–555
Kwon H, Choi M (2011) Error assessment of climate variables for FAO 56 reference evapotranspiration. Meteorol Atmos Phys 112:81–90
Llasat MC, Synder RL (1998) Data error effects on net radiation and evapotranspiration estimation. Agr Forest Meteorol 91:209–221
McCuen RH (1974) A sensitivity and error analysis of procedures used for estimating evaporation. Water Res Bull 10(3):486–497
Montaldo N, Toninelli V, Albertson JD, Mancini M, Troch PA (2003) The effect of background hydrometeorological conditions on the sensitivity of evapotranspiration to model parameters: analysis with measurements from an Italian alpine catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 7(6):848–861
Nandagiri L, Kovoor GM (2005) Sensitivity of Food and Agriculture Organization Penman-Monteith evapotranspiration estimates to alternative procedures for estimation of parameters. J Irrig Drain Eng 131(3):238–248
Nandagiri L, Kovoor GM (2006) Performance evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations across a range of Indian climates. J Irrig Drain Eng 132(3):238–249
Piper BS (1989) Sensitivity of Penman estimates of evaporation to errors in input data. Agr Water Manage 15:279–300
Saxton KE (1975) Sensitivity analysis of the combination evapotranspiration equation. Agr Meteorol 15:343–353
Singh VP, Xu CY (1997) Sensitivity of mass transfer-based evaporation equations to errors in daily and monthly input data. Hydrol Process 11(11):1465–1473
Subrahmanyam VP (1983) Some aspects of water balance in the tropical monsoon climates of India. In: Proceedings of hamburg symposium, I. A. H. S. Publication No. 140, pp 325–331
Wu F-C, Tsang Y-P (2004) Second-order Monte Carlo uncertainty/variability analysis using correlated model parameters: application to salmonid embryo survival risk assessment. Ecol Model 177 (3–4):393–414
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kovoor, G.M., Nandagiri, L. (2018). Sensitivity Analysis of FAO-56 Penman–Monteith Reference Evapotranspiration Estimates Using Monte Carlo Simulations. In: Singh, V., Yadav, S., Yadava, R. (eds) Hydrologic Modeling. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 81. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5801-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5801-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5800-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5801-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)