HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zhang, Y. Articles by Zhang, X. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Zhang, Y. Articles by Zhang, X. Agricola Articles by Zhang, Y. Articles by Zhang, X. Related Collections Agroclimatology Water Stress Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration Models Wheat

Estimation of Winter Wheat Evapotranspiration under Water Stress with Two Semiempirical Approaches

^a Luancheng Agroecosyst. Stn., Inst. of Geogr. Sci. and Nat. Resour. Res., Chinese Acad. of Sci., Bldg. 917, Datun Rd., Beijing 100101, China
^b Xiying Zhang, Shijiazhuang Inst. of Agric. Modernization, Chinese Acad. of Sci., 286 Huaizhong Rd., Shijiazhuang 050021, P.R. China
^c Inst. of Environ. Sci., Beijing Normal Univ., Beijing 100875, P.R. China

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (a) Comparison between the recharge model-–estimated and lysimeter-measured averaged daily evapotranspiration (ET) from 10 d and (b) comparison of the recharge model-–estimated and adjusted seasonal ET at Luancheng Station. Adjusted ET was calculated from the soil water balance and the simulated deep drainage with the recharge model. The diagonal line represents the 1:1 relationship. Part (b) includes all water treatments. SWD, soil water deficit.

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Accumulation of estimated actual evapotranspiration (ETa) with the recharge model under different irrigation treatments and accumulation of daily average air temperature at Luancheng Station in the three consecutive winter wheat seasons, 1998–2001. ETa_A, ETa_B, ETa_C, ETa_D, and ETa_E are estimated ETa values with the recharge model under the five irrigation treatments (A, B, C, D, and E), which are shown in Table 2.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Comparison of crop coefficient (Kc)–reference evapotranspiration (ET0) approach to estimate ET with adjusted seasonal ET at Luancheng Station in the three consecutive seasons, 1998–2001. Adjusted ET was calculated from the soil water balance and the simulated deep drainage by the recharge model. The diagonal line represents the 1:1 relationship. All soil water deficit (SWD) treatments are included, except for the no SWD treatment.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The seasonal pattern of average crop coefficient (Kc) for winter wheat at Luancheng Station in the three consecutive winter wheat season, 1998–2001. Kc was determined from lysimeter-measured actual evapotranspiration and reference evapotranspiration.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. The seasonal pattern of leaf area index (LAI) for winter wheat under different irrigation treatments at Luancheng Station in three consecutive seasons, 1998–2001. Error bars, which represent standard deviation from average LAI, are not shown from 7 May 1999 to 10 June 1999 and in 2000–2001 owing to lack of collecting all LAI data from the experimental plots. Treatments A, B, and C represent slight soil water deficit (SWD) conditions, Treatment D represents no SWD condition, and Treatment E represents severe SWD condition. Irrigation applications of the five treatments are shown in Table 2.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Seasonal variation of soil water stress coefficient (Ks) and its related irrigation and precipitation at Luancheng Station in three consecutive seasons, 1998–2001. The detailed information of Treatments A, B, C, and E is listed in Table 2. Error bars represent standard deviation of Ks. SWD, soil water deficit.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Comparison between 10-d potential evapotranspiration calculated by the FAO Penman–Monteith method and estimated as a fraction of Class A pan evaporation, 1998–2001. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.88.