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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lascano, R. J. Articles by van Bavel, C. H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lascano, R. J. Articles by van Bavel, C. H. M. Agricola Articles by Lascano, R. J. Articles by van Bavel, C. H. M. Related Collections Agroclimatology Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration Models

Explicit and Recursive Calculation of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration

^a Texas A&M Univ. Res. and Ext. Center, 3810 4th Street, Lubbock, TX 79415
^b Soil & Crop Sciences Dep., Texas A&M Univ., 245 Pecan Valley Rd., Center Point, TX 78010

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Difference of (RCM – ECM) vs. RCM for (a) ETp (potential evapotranspiration) and (b) ETa (actual transpiration) using hourly and daily weather data. RCM = recursive combination method and ECM = explicit combination method.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Hourly values of calculated potential evapotranspiration (ETp) on Day 178, 1994 at Lubbock, TX, as found from the explicit (ECM) and the recursive (RCM) combination methods. The total daily evapotranspiration is also shown for ECM and RCM.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Hourly values of calculated surface temperature (Ts) obtained with the explicit (ECM) and the recursive (RCM) combination methods on Day 178, 1994 at Lubbock, TX.