Comparative Evaluation of Radiation-Based Methods for

Estimation of Potential Evapotranspiration

Mohammad Valipour 1

Abstract: Evapotranspiration has a major role in agricultural and forest meteorology researches, hydrological cycle, irrigation scheduling, and
water resources management. There are many methods to estimate the potential evapotranspiration including mass transfer, radiation, temper-
ature, and pan evaporation-based methods. The present study aims to compare radiation-based methods to determine the best method under
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

different weather conditions. The results discussed in this paper are from the data collected in the study area, but the method can be used in other
similar regions. For this purpose, weather data was collected from 181 synoptic stations in 31 provinces of Iran. The potential evapotranspiration
was estimated using 22 radiation-based methods and compared with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Penman-Monteith method. The results show that the Stephens method estimates the potential evapotranspiration better than other methods
for provinces of Iran. However, the values of R2 varied from 0.93 to 0.98 for 15 provinces of Iran. Therefore, the methods were calibrated
and precision of estimation was increased (the values of R2 were less than 0.99 for 4 provinces in the modified methods). The radiation-based
methods estimated the potential evapotranspiration in the central provinces of Iran (solar radiation between 24.0 and 25.0 MJ · m−2 · day−1 ,
annual relative humidity less than 50%, and sunshine more than 250 h · month−1 ) better than other provinces. The most precise methods
were the Berengena-Gavilan method for Esfahan (ES) (before calibration), the Stephens method for Zanjan (ZA) and Lorestan (LO), and
the Stephens-Stewart method for Semnan (SE) (after calibration). Finally, a list of the best performances of each method is presented to use
in other region studies according to mean, maximum, and minimum temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, elevation, sunshine, and wind
speed. The best temperatures to use radiation-based equations are 10–26°C, 16.5–24.0°C (with the exception of Jones-Ritchie), and 5–13°C for
mean, maximum, and minimum temperature, respectively. The results are also useful for selecting the best model when radiation-based models
must be applied based on available data. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001066. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Calibration; Evapotranspiration; Food and Agriculture Organization Penman-Monteith; Iran; Radiation; Sunshine.

Introduction
Evapotranspiration has a significant role in irrigation scheduling
and water resources management. The highest precision of evapo-
transpiration could be obtained using lysimeter (Banihabib et al.
2012; Schrader et al. 2013; Xu and Chen 2005) or imaging tech-
niques (Rahimi et al. 2014; Tian et al. 2012, 2013; Valipor et al.
2014), but their costs are too high. Instead, researchers can use the
crop coefficients and reference evapotranspiration to calculate the
actual evapotranspiration. Thus, the Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation of the United Nations (FAO) Penman-Monteith method
(Allen et al. 1998) has been presented to estimate the potential
evapotranspiration. Although the FAO Penman-Monteith (FPM)
has been applied in various regions of the world (Estevez et al.
2009; Valipour 2012a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, 2014m, n; Valipour
et al. 2013a, b, c, 2012a, b, c, d), it needs too many param-
eters to estimate the potential evapotranspiration. In most regions,
weather data is limited, and researchers cannot use the FPM.
To this end, experimental methods have been developed for esti-
mation of the potential evapotranspiration using limited data. They
include mass transfer, radiation, temperature, and pan evaporation-
based methods. The radiation-based method is one of the most
widely used methods to estimate potential evapotranspiration.
1
Dept. of Water Engineering, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad Univ.,
Kermanshah, Iran. E-mail: vali-pour@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 9, 2014; approved on
July 16, 2014; published online on September 19, 2014. Discussion period
open until February 19, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/04014068(14)/$25.00.
The common radiation-based methods are the Ab. (Abtew 1996), Ma.
(Makkink 1957), PT (Priestley and Taylor 1972), Tu. (Turc 1961;
Xu et al. 2008), MC (Alexandris and Kerkides 2003; Alexandris
et al. 2006), JH (Jensen and Haise 1963), DP (Doorenbos and Pruitt
1977), MB (McGuinness and Bordne 1972), SS (Jensen 1966;
Stephens and Stewart 1963), JR (Jones and Ritchie 1990), and
Ir. (Irmak et al. 2003). A thorough review must be done to find
weaknesses of the previous studies.
Bois et al. (2008) compared the Tu., Priestley-Taylor, and
Hargreaves methods in Oceanic and Mediterranean climates. The
results showed that radiation-based methods were more precise
than Hargreaves method. A good agreement was found between
the potential evapotranspiration estimated by the MPT model
with observations, with linear slope of 0.99 and R2 of 0.94 and
0.96 for half-hourly and daily time scale, respectively. Thus
the MPT model can be used to estimate the potential evapotran-
spiration or quantify the effect of controlling factors on the poten-
tial evapotranspiration in similar agricultural fields (Ding et al.
2013). A recent study for a site in the humid southeastern United
States found that the PT method overestimated the potential
evapotranspiration and was less precise than the FPM among
some of the approaches that were evaluated (Suleiman and
Hoogenboom 2007). Furthermore, Ye et al. (2009) showed that
the PT method was more suitable for the Tibetan Plateau in
the absence of the parameters necessary for the calculation of the
FPM.
In the other studies, calibration was used to increase accuracy of
estimations of reference evapotranspiration equations:
Zhai et al. (2010) calibrated the Hargreaves, Ma., Tu., Priestley-
Taylor, Jensen-Haise, DP, Ab., MB, Rohwer, and Blaney-Criddle

© ASCE 04014068-1 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

 methods. They concluded that calibration can be used to modify
the potential evapotranspiration equations with multistation data
to improve the precision of the potential evapotranspiration
estimates in northwest China. Abbaspour (1991) calibrated the
methods of PT, Jensen-Haise, Hargreaves, Ma., the first and sec-
ond equations of Baier-Robertson, the modified methods of
Blaney-Criddle, and Thornthwaite for the Peace River region
of British Columbia. The results indicated significant improve-
ment in the fit of four of the methods (Hargreaves, Ma., second
equation of Baier-Robertson, and Blaney-Criddle). Overall, it was
concluded that after calibration, six of the eight methods had pre-
dictive power and fit that were not significantly different at the 5%
level. Trajkovic and Kolakovic (2009a) indicated that the Tu.
method has the lowest error and ranking first, and other methods
ranked in decreasing order are: Priestley-Taylor, Jensen-Haise,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Material and Methods
In this study, weather information (from 1951 to 2010) are gathered
from 181 synoptic stations of 31 provinces in Iran. Table 1 shows
the location of each of the provinces, number of years that data was
measured, and number of stations.
In this study, only stations with no missing data were consid-
ered, and the role of data intensity was not considered.
In each station, the average weather data in years measured is
considered as value of that weather parameter in each month
(e.g., value of solar radiation in June for North Khorasan (NK)
is average of 24 data gathered). A spatial interpolation method is
usually used to obtain an averaged value from stations. However,
because most synoptic stations are located in the north, south, west,
and east of each province based on different weather conditions and

Thornthwaite, and Hargreaves. The Tu. method gives the reliable considering equal spatial distance, the spatial interpolation method
calculation at all humid locations, and it has proven to be the most was skipped. Therefore, the average of data in all stations has been
adjustable to the local climatic conditions. The results indicate considered as value of that weather parameter in each month for
very clearly that the Tu. method is most suitable for estimating provinces with more than one station (e.g., value of relative humid-
potential evapotranspiration for humid locations when weather ity in June for Khuzestan (KH) is an average of 55 × 14 ¼ 770
data are insufficient to apply the FPM. The locally calibrated data gathered. Because in KH, there are 14 synoptic stations, and
Tu. and Priestley-Taylor perform much better than the original, in each station, there are data of average daily evapotranspiration in
with either the observed evapotranspiration (lysimeter) or the different months for 55 years). All of the data mentioned were used
evapotranspiration obtained by FPM as the standard. However, for estimating the potential evapotranspiration using 22 radiation-
local calibration does not significantly improve the performance based methods and compared with the FPM method to determine
of the Hargreaves-Samani method. In humid East China, FPM
is the best method for daily evapotranspiration calculation. The
Tu. method, especially if locally calibrated, is the optimal choice Table 1. Position of All Provinces and Synoptic Stations and Data
as a simple substitute for FPM when solar radiation is available. Measured and Number of Stations (Center of Provinces Has Been
Otherwise, serious local calibration is strongly recommended Considered as Position of Each Province)
before applying Hargreaves-Samani for daily evapotranspiration Data
estimation (Xu et al. 2013). Latitude Longitude measured Number
In the previous studies, one or more of the radiation-based meth- Province (N) (E) (year) of station
ods have been compared with temperature, mass transfer, or pan Alborz (AL) 35°55′ 50°54′ 20 1
evaporation-based methods. In other cases, there are some methods Ardabil (AR) 38°15′ 48°17′ 30 4
that can estimate the potential evapotranspiration better than the Bushehr (BU) 28°59′ 50°50′ 55 5
radiation-based methods. This is because the previous studies Chaharmahal and 32°17′ 50°51′ 51 4
focus on special weather conditions (not suitable for applying the Bakhtiari (CB)
East Azerbaijan (EA) 38°05′ 46°17′ 55 10
radiation-based method) and/or do not consider radiation-based
Esfahan (ES) 32°37′ 51°40′ 55 12
methods. Moreover, the results of the previous studies are not use- Fars (FA) 29°32′ 52°36′ 55 9
able for estimating potential evapotranspiration in other regions, Ghazvin (GH) 36°15′ 50°03′ 47 2
because they are recommended for one or more climatic conditions. Gilan (GI) 37°15′ 49°36′ 50 4
However, a climatic condition contains various values of weather Gorgan (GO) 36°51′ 54°16′ 54 3
parameters (e.g., temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, solar Hamedan (HA) 34°52′ 48°32′ 55 4
radiation, and so on), and results of each research (for a region with Hormozgan (HO) 27°13′ 56°22′ 49 9
specific weather variations) is not applicable for other regions with- Ilam (IL) 33°38′ 46°26′ 20 3
Kohgiluyeh and 30°50′ 51°41′ 19 1
out determining specified ranges of each weather parameter even
Boyer-Ahmad (KB)
if climatic conditions (e.g., humid, arid, semi-arid, temperate, and Kerman (KE) 30°15′ 56°58′ 55 8
so on) are the same for both regions. In addition, the farm managers Khuzestan (KH) 31°20′ 48°40′ 55 14
cannot schedule for irrigation and agricultural water management Kurdistan (KO) 35°20′ 47°00′ 47 7
when the potential evapotranspiration is estimated for a basin, Kermanshah (KS) 34°21′ 47°09′ 55 6
wetland, watershed, or catchment instead of a state or province, Lorestan (LO) 33°26′ 48°17′ 55 9
and/or the number of weather stations used is low (increasing un- Markazi (MA) 34°06′ 49°46′ 51 4
certainly). Therefore, this study aims to estimate the potential Mazandaran (MZ) 36°33′ 53°00′ 55 7
North Khorasan (NK) 37°28′ 57°16′ 24 1
evapotranspiration for 31 provinces of Iran (considering their us-
Qom (QO) 34°42′ 50°51′ 20 1
ability for long-term and macroeconomic policies of governments Razavi Khorasan (RK) 36°16′ 59°38′ 55 12
and adaptability to various weather conditions and) using average Sistan and Baluchestan (SB) 29°28′ 60°05′ 55 8
data of 181 synoptic stations (decreasing uncertainly) and by 22 Semnan (SE) 35°35′ 53°33′ 55 4
radiation-based methods to determine the best method based on South Khorasan (SK) 32°52′ 59°12′ 51 3
the weather conditions of each province (for which the best weather Tehran (TE) 35°41′ 51°19′ 55 8
parameters are determined for use in other regions and future West Azerbaijan (WA) 37°32′ 45°05′ 55 8
studies) as well as increasing precision of the methods by calibra- Yazd (YA) 31°54′ 54°17′ 54 6
Zanjan (ZA) 36°41′ 48°29′ 51 4
tion for each province.

© ASCE 04014068-2 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

 P12
i¼1 ðETFPMi − ETmi Þ
the best method based on the weather conditions of each province
(Table 2). MBE ¼ ð2Þ
12
The best method for each province and the best estimation of
each method are determined using the below error indices
In which, i indicates month, ETFPM indicates the potential
P12 evapotranspiration calculated for the FPM method (mm=day),
i¼1 ðETFPMi − ETmi Þ2
R2 ¼ 1 − P  P12  ð1Þ ETm indicates the potential evapotranspiration calculated for
12 ETFPM 2
i¼1 ETFPMi − i¼112 i radiation-based methods (mm=day), and MBE is the mean bias
error (mm=day).

Table 2. Method Used and Parameters Applied in Each Method Including Their References and Formulas (the Highlighted Values Indicate Changeable
Values by Calibration)
Model Reference(s) Formula Parameters
900 H, φ, T, T min , T max , RH, u, n
FAO Penman-Monteith Allen et al. (1998) 0.408ðRn − GÞ þ γ Tþ273 uðes − ea Þ
ETo ¼
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Δ þ γð1 þ 0.34uÞ
Rs T max
Abtew Abtew (1996) ETo ¼ 0.01786 T, T max , Rs
λ
Δ Rn − G
Berengena-Gavilan Berengena and Gavilan (2005) ETo ¼ 1.65 T, T max , T min , n, RH, φ, H
Δþγ λ
Caprio Caprio (1974) ETo ¼ ð0.01092708T þ 0.0060706ÞRs T, Rs
Δ Rs
Castaneda-Rao Castaneda and Rao (2005) ETo ¼ 0.70 − 0.12 T, Rs
Δþγ λ
Rs
Christiansen Christiansen (1968), Hargreaves ETo ¼ 0.0385 T, Rs
and Allen (2003) λ
Δ Rs
de Bruin de Bruin (1981), de Bruin and ETo ¼ 0.65 T, Rs
Lablans (1998), de Bruin and Δþγ λ
Stricker (2000)
Doorenbos-Pruitt Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) ETo ¼ ð1.066 − 0.0013RH þ 0.045u − 0.0002RHu T, Rs , RH, u
Δ Rs
− 0.0000315RH 2 − 0.0011u2 Þ − 0.3
Δþγ λ
Δ Rs
Hansen Hansen (1984) ETo ¼ 0.7 T, Rs
Δþγ λ
Irmak Irmak et al. (2003) ETo ¼ 0.149Rs þ 0.079T − 0.611 T, Rs
Jensen-Haise Jensen and Haise (1963) ETo ¼ 0.408CT ðT − T x ÞRs T, Rs , H, T max , T min
Jones-Ritchie Jones and Ritchie (1990) ETo ¼ ð0.002322T max þ 0.001548T min þ 0.11223ÞRs α Rs , T max , T min
Δ Rs
Makkink Makkink (1957) ETo ¼ 0.61 − 0.12 T, Rs
Δþγ λ
McGuinness-Bordne McGuinness and Bordne (1972) ETo ¼ ð0.00597T − 0.0838ÞRs T, Rs
Modified Copais Alexandris and Kerkides, (2003), ETo ¼ 0.057 þ 0.277C2 þ 0.643C1 þ 0.0124C1 C2 T, Rs , RH
Alexandris et al. (2006) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Modified Jensen-Haise Samani and Pessarakli (1986) ETo ¼ 0.408CT ðT − T x ÞK T Ra T max − T min H, T, n, φ, T max , T min
Δ Rn − G
Modified Priestley-Taylor Abtew (1996) ETo ¼ 1.18 T, T max , T min , n, RH, φ, H
Δþγ λ
T max
Modified Turc Abtew (1996) ETo ¼ ð0.2868Rs þ 0.6Þ T max , Rs
T max þ 15
Δ Rn − G
Priestley-Taylor Priestley and Taylor (1972) ETo ¼ 1.26 T, T max , T min , n, RH, φ, H
Δþγ λ
R
Stephens Stephens (1965) Jensen (1966) ETo ¼ ð0.0158T þ 0.09Þ s T, Rs
λ
Rs
Stephens-Stewart Jensen (1966), Stephens and ETo ¼ ð0.0148T þ 0.07Þ T, Rs
Stewart (1963) λ
Tat
Turc Turc (1961), Xu et al. (2008) ETo ¼ ð0.3107Rs þ 0.65Þ T, Rs
T þ 15
Xu-Singh Xu and Singh (2000) Δ Rn − G T, T max, T min , n, RH, φ, H
ETo ¼ 0.98 − 0.94
Δþγ λ
Note: ETo = reference crop evapotranspiration (mm=day); Rn = net radiation (MJ=m2 =day); G = soil heat flux (MJ=m2 =day); γ = psychrometric constant
(kPa=°C); es = saturation vapor pressure (kPa); ea = actual vapor pressure (kPa); Δ = slope of the saturation vapor pressure–temperature curve (kPa=°C);
T = average daily air temperature (°C); u = mean daily wind speed at 2 m (m=s); H = elevation (m); φ = latitude (rad); T min = minimum air temperature (°C);
T max = maximum air temperature (°C); RH = average relative humidity (%); n = actual duration of sunshine (hr); Rs = solar radiation (MJ=m2 =day); Ra =
extraterrestrial radiation (MJ=m2 =day); λ = latent heat of vaporization (MJ=kg); CT , T x , α, C1 , C2 , at , and K T = empirical coefficients.

© ASCE 04014068-3 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Error of Methods Used for Each Province Using Eqs. (1) and (2)
CB EA WA AR ES IL BU TE AL SK RK NK KH ZA SE

© ASCE
a,b b b
Ab. MBE −0.86 0.42 −0.51 −0.16 −0.36 0 −0.77 0.22 −0.19 0.06 −0.4 −0.31 −0.49 −0.35 −0.75
R2 0.38 0.96a 0.81 0.82 0.9 0.99a,b 0.82 0.98b 0.95 0.98b 0.95 0.96 0.97b 0.85 0.84
BG MBE −0.77 0.29 −0.73 −0.53 0.08b 0.35 −0.54 0.66 0.03b 0.81 −0.14 −0.22 1.29 −0.45 −0.18
R2 0.69 0.93 0.73 0.59 1a,b 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.99b 0.85 0.97b 0.96 0.74 0.87 0.98
Ca. MBE −0.69 0.26 −0.73 −0.18 −0.82 −0.8 −2.32 −0.63 −0.67 −0.26 −0.71 −0.63 −1.59 −0.4 −1.64
R2 0.16 0.96a,b 0.73 0.51 0.55 0.77 −0.6 0.78 0.71 0.94 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.63 0.12
CR MBE −1.29 −0.2 −1.15 −1.04 −0.5 −0.34 −0.26 0a,b −0.51 0.08 −0.63 −0.71 0.72 −0.94 −0.82
R2 0.39 0.86 0.6 0.39 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.93a 0.91 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.74 0.74 0.84
Ch. MBE −0.72 0.31 −0.74 −0.85 0.36 0.51 0.98 0.86 0.18 0.94 −0.04b −0.18 1.99 −0.5 0.09
R2 0.6 0.55 0.62 0.52 0.66 0.54 0.41 0.52 0.67 0.44 0.64 0.67 0.1 0.67 0.68
de MBE 1.08 0.01b 0.97 0.88 0.27 0.11 0a,b −0.22 0.31 −0.31 0.43 0.52 −0.98 0.76 0.6
R2 0.57 0.84 0.71 0.57 0.93a 0.88 0.9 0.9 0.92 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.67 0.82 0.88
DP MBE 3.02 2.05 2.39 2.08 2.76 2.62 1.96 2.34 2.46 2.42 2.3 2.23 1.85a 2.47 2.9
R2 −2.8 0.33 −0.9 −1.6 −0.7 −0.2 0.04 0.09 −0.3 0.1 −0.1 −0.1b 0.66a −1 −0.8
Ha. MBE 1.41 0.32 1.27 1.16 0.62 0.46 0.38 0.12 0.63 0.04a 0.75 0.83 −0.6 1.06 0.94
R2 0.28 0.85 0.51 0.26 0.89 0.87 0.89 0.93a 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.8 0.76 0.67 0.81
Ir. MBE 0.86 −0.11 0.87 0.79 0.12 0.02a 0.13 −0.3 0.21 −0.45 0.37 0.45 −0.83 0.6 0.53
R2 0.71 0.81 0.74 0.63 0.9a 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.89 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.64 0.85 0.87
JH MBE −1.11 −0.18 0.64 −0.02a,b 1.23 0.44 0.27 0.15 0.61 0.8 0.48 0.37 0.61 0.83 1.19
R2 0.48 0.95b 0.45 0.72 0 0.74 0.86 0.77 0.54 0.73 0.81 0.84 0.89 0.16 0.28
JR MBE 1.48 0.41 1.36 1.2 0.94 0.78 1.31 0.5 0.88 0.34 1.05 1.08 1.6 1.1 1.44
R2 0.16 0.89 0.41 0.12 0.81 0.87 0.55 0.94 0.83 0.91 0.76 0.73 0.68 0.63 0.6
Ma. MBE 0.7 −0.35 0.64 0.54 −0.12 −0.28 −0.43 −0.61 −0.07 −0.7 0.06a 0.16 −1.4 0.39 0.21
R2 0.81 0.8 0.45 0.83 0.92a 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.92a 0.74 0.88 0.89 0.54 0.92a 0.92a
MB MBE −0.41 −1.18 −0.3 −0.56 −0.82 −0.89 −0.33 −1.12 −0.79 −1.39 −0.66 −0.62 −1.17 −0.62 −0.22

04014068-4
R2 0.91 0.72 0.97 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.95 0.78 0.86 0.64 0.88 0.89 0.78 0.89 0.98a
MC MBE 2.85 1.44 2.09 1.43 2.38 2.26 0.77 1.83 2 1.96 1.86 1.67 1.12a 2.15 2.63

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

R2 −2.1 0.66 −0.3 −0.1 −0.2 0.15 0.82 0.49 0.18 0.43 0.35 0.42 0.85a −0.3 −0.3
MJH MBE 1.11 −0.85 0.03 −0.72 0.39 −0.31 −0.69 −0.67 −0.19 −0.1 −0.26 −0.42 −0.58 0.12 0.29
R2 −0.9 0.89 0.72 0.68 0.5 0.85 0.81 0.8 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.92a 0.92a 0.62 0.74
MPT MBE −0.34 −1.32 −0.25 −0.4 −1.25 −1.48 −1.03 −1.78 −1.13 −1.94 −0.94 −0.83 −2.61 −0.58 −0.96
R2 0.95 0.61 0.97 0.9 0.61 0.49 0.72 0.41 0.69 0.29 0.75 0.79 0.1 0.88 0.76
MT MBE 1.17 −0.07a 0.95 0.88 0.41 0.14 0.25 −0.16 0.38 −0.07 0.63 0.66 −0.63 0.74 0.69
R2 0.47 0.87 0.69 0.47 0.91 0.89 0.86 0.91 0.93a 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.7 0.8 0.86
PT MBE −0.15b −1.15 −0.07a −0.24 −1.05 −1.29 −0.76 −1.59 −0.95 −1.75 −0.76 −0.65 −2.39 −0.4 −0.77
R2 0.99ab 0.69 0.99a,b 0.94b 0.73 0.6 0.84 0.54 0.78 0.42 0.83 0.86 0.23 0.94 0.85
St. MBE −0.08 −0.85 0.02a,b −0.28 −0.42 −0.49 0.2 −0.71 −0.42 −0.99 −0.3 −0.28 −0.61 −0.31 0.2
R2 0.94 0.85 0.99a,b 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.91 0.96 0.81 0.96 0.97b 0.91 0.97b 0.99a,b
SS MBE −0.41 −1.17 −0.3 −0.57 −0.8 −0.87 −0.28 −1.1 −0.77 −1.37 −0.65 −0.61 −1.1 −0.62 −0.19b
R2 0.9 0.73 0.97 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.97b 0.79 0.86 0.65 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.89 0.99a,b
Tu. MBE 1.06 −0.08a 0.51 0.26 1.11 1.22 0.43 0.75 0.66 0.81 0.66 0.37 0.57 0.42 1.58
R2 −0.1 0.96a,b 0.77 0.62 0.57 0.66 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.85 0.88 0.93 0.95 0.75 0.41
XS MBE −1.7 −2.56 −1.51 −1.59 −2.65 −2.86 −2.64 −3.11 −2.45 −3.31 −2.25 −2.09 −4.11 −1.84 −2.31
R2 −0.1 −0.2 0.26a −0.3 −0.6 −0.6 −0.7 −0.7 −0.3 −0.8 −0.1 −0.1 −0.9 0 −0.2
SB FA QO GH KO KE KS KB GO GI LO MZ MA HO HA YA
Ab. MBE 0.26 −0.39 −0.58 −0.42 −0.5 0.26 −0.39 −0.83 −1.49 −1.53 −1.05 −1.37 −0.65 −1.05 −0.63 0.01b
R2 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.86 0.98b 0.92 0.65 −0.3 −1 0.57 −0.4 0.73 0.53 0.66 0.99a,b
BG MBE 1.27 0.24 0.42 −0.16 −0.02a,b 1.09 0.27 −0.63 −0.94 −1.08 −0.18 −0.96 −0.44 −0.68 −0.59 1.07
R2 0.67 0.97b 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.76 0.93b 0.84 0.41 −0.1 0.95 0.15 0.92 0.65 0.83 0.8

J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. (Continued.)
SB FA QO GH KO KE KS KB GO GI LO MZ MA HO HA YA

© ASCE
a,b
Ca. MBE −0.18 −0.83 −1.07 −0.66 −0.55 0.15 −0.41 −1.16 −2.42 −2.36 −1.37 −2.42 −0.94 −2.81 −0.52 −0.67
R2 0.86 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.93 0.83 0.16 −2.8 −4.2 0.16 −3.8 0.29 −2.4 0.49 0.77
CR MBE 0.5 −0.29 −0.24 −0.65 −0.67 0.27 −0.41 −1.16 −1.64 −1.92 −0.84 −1.67 −1.03 −0.29 −1.07 0.26
R2 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.6 −0.3 −1.5 0.79 −0.7 0.73 0.91 0.66 0.9
Ch. MBE 1.52 0.67 0.63 −0.03b −0.08 1.14 0.22 −0.35 −0.97 −1.41 0a,b −0.99 −0.35 1.12 −0.6 1.28
R2 0.18 0.51 0.55 0.68 0.67 0.37 0.6 0.66 0.44 −0.4 0.68 0.33 0.69a 0.24 0.66 0.34
de MBE −0.75 0.05b 0.02 0.45 0.47 −0.5 0.21 0.93 1.44 1.74 0.62 1.47 0.82 0.01b 0.88 −0.5
R2 0.78 0.9 0.89 0.9 0.9 0.83 0.89 0.72 0.03 −1 0.85 −0.3 0.81 0.93 0.77 0.84
DP MBE 2.33 2.68 2.47 2.42 2.54 2.48 2.42 3.11 2.5 2.26 2.79 2.32 2.9 1.98 2.64 2.45
R2 −0.1 −0.5 0.08 −0.4 −0.6 −0.1 −0.2 −2.1 −2.2 −2.7 −1.1 −2.5 −1.4 −0.4 −1.4 0.02
Ha. MBE −0.38 0.41 0.41 0.77 0.79 −0.15 0.53 1.28 1.76 2.04 0.96 1.79 1.15 0.41 1.19 −0.14
R2 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.83 0.9 0.87 0.51 −0.5 −1.8 0.74 −0.9 0.66 0.88 0.59 0.91
Ir. MBE −0.88 −0.09 −0.02 0.35 0.36 −0.69 0.11 0.75 1.57 1.87 0.55 1.6 0.65 0.15 0.71 −0.59
R2 0.68 0.85 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.74 0.86 0.77 −0.1 −1.3 0.84 −0.5 0.85 0.88 0.82 0.78
JH MBE 0.67 1.42 1.04 0.83 0.83 0.9 0.96 1.88 0.71 0.63 1.69 0.45 1.52 0.6 1.32 0.85
R2 0.52 0 0.57 0.43 0.43 0.48 0.32 −1.3 0.41 0.3 −0.7 0.58 −0.7 0.71 −0.7 0.53
JR MBE 0.08a,b 0.89 1.18 1.04 1.14 0.1 0.97 1.46 2.23 2.46 1.62 2.23 1.32 1.55 1.29 0.57
R2 0.98a,b 0.83 0.8 0.76 0.72 0.95 0.8 0.38 −1.4 −3.2 0.28 −2.1 0.55 0 0.49 0.94
Ma. MBE −1.16 −0.36 −0.37 0.08 0.09 −0.91 −0.17 0.54 1.07 1.37 0.23 1.09 0.44 −0.43 0.51 −0.91
R2 0.6 0.85 0.84 0.92a 0.92a 0.7 0.87 0.87 0.47 −0.3 0.92a 0.28 0.92a 0.84 0.9 0.73
MB MBE −1.74 −0.99 −0.79 −0.69 −0.73 −1.73 −0.96 −0.33 0.7 0.87 −0.35 0.71 −0.42 −0.15a −0.53 −1.33
R2 0.38 0.77 0.87 0.89 0.87 0.42 0.79 0.96 0.71 0.35 0.97 0.59 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.7
MC MBE 1.69 2.12 2.12 2.01 2.26 1.96 2.01 2.79 2.03 1.75 2.42 1.63 2.63 0.68 2.34 2.03
R2 0.43 0.1 0.36 0.15 −0.1 0.34 0.21 −1.4 −0.9 −1.1 −0.5 −0.6 −0.8 0.77 −0.7 0.37
MJH MBE −0.37 0.53 0.15b 0.06 0.23 −0.13 0.09b 1.04 −0.41 −0.49 0.72 −0.66 0.67 −0.55 0.58 −0.12

04014068-5
R2 0.75 0.55 0.83 0.74 0.59 0.78 0.68 −0.2 0.88 0.78 0.2 0.71 0.17 −0.85 0.09 0.79
MPT MBE −2.47 −1.49 −1.55 −0.93 −1.03 −2.22 −1.33 −0.57 −0.1a 0.13b −0.96 −0.09b −0.66 −0.99 −0.47 −2.24

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

R2 −0.3 0.44 0.53 0.77 0.69 0 0.53 0.86 0.99a,b 0.97b 0.7 0.98 0.85 −0.65 0.92 0.09
MT MBE −0.46 0.27 0.31 0.59 0.64 −0.24 0.45 1.01 1.71 1.98 0.9 1.7 0.83 −0.25 0.92 −0.28
R2 0.83 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.89 0.68 −0.4 −1.6 0.76 −0.7 0.81 −0.87 0.72 0.85
PT MBE −2.27 −1.28 −1.36 −0.75 −0.85 −2.03 −1.15 −0.36 0.07a,b 0.3 −0.77 0.09b −0.48 −0.71 −0.29 −2.04
R2 −0.1 0.59 0.64 0.85 0.78 0.16 0.63 0.93 0.99a,b 0.89 0.8 0.95 0.92 0.81 0.96 0.25
St. MBE −1.3 −0.57 −0.36 −0.33 −0.38 −1.33 −0.6 0.05b 1.1 1.24 0.06 1.11 −0.05b −0.43 −0.21b −0.89
R2 0.66 0.92 0.97b 0.97b 0.97b 0.66 0.92 0.98b 0.3 −0.3 0.99a,b 0.07 0.98b −0.89 0.97b 0.87
SS MBE −1.71 −0.97 −0.76 −0.68 −0.73 −1.72 −0.96 −0.32 0.72 0.88 −0.33 0.73 −0.41 −0.08a −0.54 −1.3
R2 0.4 0.79 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.44 0.8 0.96 0.69 0.33 0.97 0.56 0.95 0.97b 0.9 0.72
Tu. MBE 0.69 1.05 1.12 0.56 0.82 0.69 0.75 1.52 1.69 1.91 1.44 1.73 1.17 −0.49 0.64 1.09
R2 0.81 0.7 0.77 0.87 0.63 0.83 0.78 0 −0.4 −1.6 0.32 −0.9 0.27 −0.86 0.56 0.74
XS MBE −3.91 −2.96 −2.91 −2.24 −2.32 −3.62 −2.65 −1.99 −1.41 −1.12a −2.34 −1.4 −2 −2.65 −1.78 −3.64
R2 −2.2 −0.9 −0.4 −0.2 −0.3 −1.5 −0.6 −0.3 0.07 0.18 −0.5 −0.1 −0.1 −1.5 0 −1.2
Note: Ab. = Abtew; BG = Berengena-Gavilan; Ca = Caprio; CR = Castaneda-Rao; Ch. = Christiansen; de = de Bruin; DP = Doorenbos-Pruitt; Ha. = Hansen; Ir. = Irmak; JH = Jensen-Haise; JR = Junes-Ritche; Ma.
= Makkink; MB = McGuinness-Bordne; MC = Modified Copais; MJH = Modified Jensen-Haise; MPT = Modified Priestley-Taylor; MT = Modified Turc; PT = Priestley-Taylor; St. = Stephens; SS = Stephens-
Stewart; Tu. = Turc; XS = Xu-Singh.
a
The best value of each method.
b
The best value of each province.

J. Hydrol. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Comparison of evapotranspiration calculated using FAO Penman-Montieth (FPM) with the best method for each province

Eq. (1) provides a measure of how well reference outcomes
(the potential evapotranspiration calculated for FPM method) are
replicated by the methods (the potential evapotranspiration calcu-
lated for radiation-based methods), as the proportion of total varia-
tion of outcomes explained by the models, and Eq. (2) is a measure
of overall bias error or systematic error. It is intended to indicate
average interpolation bias; that is, average over- or underestimation
by radiation-based methods (Willmott and Matsuura 2006).
The best method for each province was modified to increase
precision of estimating by calibration of the coefficients (Table 2)
similar to the studies of Irmak et al. (2003) and Xu and Singh
(2000) and using multiple linear regression in which the FPM

© ASCE 04014068-6 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

 Table 4. Method Calibrated Including Their New Formulas and Errors for Each Province
Province Method calibrated New formula R2 MBE
Δ Rn −G
CB Priestley-Taylor ETo ¼ 1.316 Δþγ λ 0.99 −0.02
Tat
EA Turc ETo ¼ ð0.301Rs − 0.312Þ Tþ0.667 0.98 −0.04
Rs
WA Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0135T þ 0.12Þ λ 1.00 0.00
Δ Rn −G
AR Priestley-Taylor ETo ¼ 1.294 Δþγ λ 0.94 −0.17
Δ Rn −G
ES Berengena-Gavilan ETo ¼ 1.665 Δþγ λ 1.00 0.04
IL Abtew ETo ¼ 0.0176 Rs Tλmax 1.00 0.07
BU Stephens-Stewart ETo ¼ ð0.0155T þ 0.0789Þ Rλs 0.99 0.00
TE Abtew ETo ¼ 0.0182 Rs Tλmax 0.98 0.14
Δ Rn −G
AL Berengena-Gavilan ETo ¼ 1.632 Δþγ λ 0.99 0.07
SK Abtew ETo ¼ 0.0182 Rs Tλmax 0.98 −0.03
Δ Rn −G
RK Berengena-Gavilan ETo ¼ 1.588 Δþγ λ 0.97 0.01
NK Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0177T þ 0.0861Þ Rλs 0.99 −0.03
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

KH Abtew ETo ¼ 0.0168 Rs Tλmax 0.99 −0.11

ZA Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0136T þ 0.151Þ Rλs 1.00 0.00
SE Stephens-Stewart ETo ¼ ð0.0145T þ 0.096Þ Rλs 1.00 0.00
SB Jones-Ritchie ETo ¼ ð0.0017T max þ 0.00346T min þ 0.104ÞRs α 0.99 0.00
Δ Rn −G
FA Berengena-Gavilan ETo ¼ 1.741 Δþγ λ 0.98 0.00
QO Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0173T þ 0.0993Þ Rλs 0.99 0.03
GH Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0157T þ 0.125Þ Rλs 1.00 −0.01
KO Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.015T þ 0.143Þ Rλs 1.00 0.01
KE Abtew ETo ¼ 0.0185 Rs Tλmax 0.98 0.08
Δ Rn −G
KS Berengena-Gavilan ETo ¼ 1.751 Δþγ λ 0.94 0.04
KB Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0136T þ 0.123Þ Rλs 0.99 0.01
Δ Rn −G
GO Priestley-Taylor ETo ¼ 1.205 Δþγ λ 0.99 −0.05
Δ Rn −G
GI Modified Priestley-Taylor ETo ¼ 1.094 Δþγ λ 0.99 −0.04
LO Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0144T þ 0.111Þ Rλs 1.00 0.00
Δ Rn −G
MZ Modified Priestley-Taylor ETo ¼ 1.177 Δþγ λ 0.98 −0.09
MA Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0128T þ 0.147Þ Rλs 0.99 0.03
HO Stephens-Stewart ETo ¼ ð0.0126T þ 0.137Þ Rλs 0.98 −0.02
HA Stephens ETo ¼ ð0.0126T þ 0.156Þ Rλs 1.00 0.01
YA Abtew ETo ¼ 0.0175 Rs Tλmax 0.99 0.01
Note: ETo = reference crop evapotranspiration (mm=day); Rn = net radiation (MJ=m2 =day); G = soil heat flux (MJ=m2 =day); γ = psychrometric constant
(kPa=°C); Δ = slope of the saturation vapor pressure–temperature curve (kPa=°C); T = average daily air temperature (°C); T min = minimum air temperature
(°C); T max = maximum air temperature (°C); Rs = solar radiation (MJ=m2 =day); λ = latent heat of vaporization (MJ=kg); α and at = empirical coefficients.

values were used as the dependent variable and other parameters
(Table 2) were the independent variables (for instance to determine
the new formulas of the SS method, ETo was the dependent
variable and values of Rs =λ and T were independent variables, then
the highlighted coefficients were considered as unknown coeffi-
cients and using multiple linear regression and by DataFit or
Curve Expert software were determined and presented in
Table 3). This is done consistently for all provinces; however, in
each province, two thirds of the data (i.e., 37 years if 55 years were
measured) were used for development of the equations, and one
third of the data (i.e., 18 years if 55 years were measured) were
applied for validation.
Then, the potential evapotranspiration calculated using new
formulas was compared with FPM, and variations of the errors
were investigated.
A map of annual average of solar radiation, mean, maximum,
and minimum temperature, relative humidity, elevation, sunshine,
and wind speed are provided, and the best performance of each
method based on these values is determined. Because a method
better fitted the data from a specific province, after development
of weather conditions for all provinces, methods that are most
suitable for each province are also identified. Meanwhile, the
map of the best method for each province and the map of the error
calculated for each province have been presented.
The best method in each province was introduced based on the
maximum R2 .
Results and Discussion
Estimating the Potential Evapotranspiration for the 31
Provinces of Iran
The study did not compare values of the statistics at the 5 or 10%
level. However, the aim of the study was finding the best method
for each province based on comparison of obtained values (Table 3).
Therefore, there is maybe no significant difference between values
of the statistics; however, it has not been studied in the manuscript,
and only the best estimations (even 0.01 mm better than other
methods) have been selected (Table 3).
Table 3 shows the errors for each method and province.
Table 3 and Eq. (2) indicate that in the Caprio (Ca.), Castaneda-
Rao (CR), MB, Modified Priestley-Taylor (MPT), PT, SS, and Xu
and Singh methods (XS; for most cases—0.92.4%), the estimations

© ASCE 04014068-7 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Comparison of evapotranspiration calculated using FAO Penman-Montieth (FPM) with the best method calibrated for each province

are more than the potential evapotranspiration calculated using
the FPM. The overestimation of the potential evapotranspiration
values by the radiation-based methods was also found in liter-
ature (Suleiman and Hoogenboom 2007; Trajkovic and Kolakovic
2009b). However, the de Bruin (de), DP, Hansen (Ha.), Ir., JH, JR,
MC, and Tu. methods (for most cases—86.0%) estimate the poten-
tial evapotranspiration less than the FPM. The underestimation
(by 35%) of the potential evapotranspiration values by the
radiation-based methods was also found in the other studies
(Kisi 2007; Thepadia and Martinez 2012; Valipour and Montazar
2012a, b, c). The XS method provided the greatest overestimate
4.11 mm=day for KH, whereas the Berengena-Gavilan (BG) and
Ir. methods yielded the least overestimate 0.02 mm=day for
Kurdistan (KO) and Qom (QO), respectively (Table 3). In addition,

© ASCE 04014068-8 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Average annual variations of solar radiation, mean temperature, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature in Iran (data from synoptic
stations in each province)

the DP method provided the greatest underestimate 3.11 mm=day
for Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad (KB), whereas the Ab. [for
Yazd (YA)] and de [for East Azerbaijan (EA) and Hormozgan
(HO)] methods yielded the least underestimate 0.01 mm=day
(Table 3). This underlines that radiation-based methods should be
used carefully in accordance with weather conditions of each
province. According to the R2 -values, each method estimates the
potential evapotranspiration best for only one or few provinces
as acceptable. In other words, precision of estimating by radia-
tion-based methods is very sensitive to variations of the parameters
used in each method (Table 2).
Comparison of the Best Methods for Each Province
It is not possible to show all of the results (Table 3) in figures;
therefore, in each province, only the result of estimation for the
best method (the highest R2 ) is presented to compare the methods
for provinces that best fit the data provinces.
Fig. 1 compares the potential evapotranspiration using FPM
with values estimated using the best method (based on Table 3)
for each province.
Fig. 1 illustrates that BG for ES (R2 ¼ 1.00 and MBE ¼ 0.08)
yielded the best potential evapotranspiration as compared with that
from the FPM. However, the Stephens (St.) method has been in-
troduced as the best method for most provinces (10), because
the St. method has the highest R2 in these 10 provinces. In general,
radiation-based methods are more suitable (R2 more than 0.98) for
ES, YA, SE, and CB (center of Iran). However, it is less than 0.98
for 15 provinces of Iran [Razavi Khorasan (RK), NK, HO, Fars
(FA), Bushehr (BU), KH, QO, Kermanshah (KS), Hamedan (HA),
ZA, KO, Ghavzin (GH), Gilan (GI), Ardabil (AR), and EA].
In addition, Table 3 indicates that variations of the errors (the worst
and best R2 ) for different methods are considerable in all provinces;
for instance in CB (−2.8 and 0.99 for the DP and PT, respectively),
these values indicate very different performance of the radiation-
based methods for a specific weather condition in each province.

© ASCE 04014068-9 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Average annual variations of relative humidity, wind speed, and sunshine as well as average elevation of the provinces in Iran (data from
synoptic stations in each province)

In addition, an impressive difference between the values of each
model is observable. For instance, the R2 values of the Ca. method
ranges from −4.2 to 0.96 for GI and EA, respectively. The MC is a
function of temperature, relative humidity, and solar radiation, and
most methods are a function of temperature and solar radiation.
In addition, the only difference among the BG, MPT, PT, and
XS methods is the coefficients used in each method (Table 2) as
well as the only difference among the CR, de, Ha., and Ma. meth-
ods is also coefficients used in each method (Table 2). This is also
true for St. and SS methods. Thus, the coefficients of the radiation-
based methods need to be adjusted based on weather conditions of
each province.
Calibration of the Best Methods Based on Their
Coefficients
The cited studies in the literature review and the text indicate im-
portance of calibration for increasing accuracy of the methods and
obtaining more reliable results.
The best methods for each province (Table 2 and Fig. 1) are
calibrated similar to the studies of Irmak et al. (2003) and Xu
and Singh (2000). Table 4 shows the new formulas with the coef-
ficients calibrated for each province.
Fig. 2 compares the potential evapotranspiration using the FPM
with values estimated using the methods calibrated (based on
Table 4) for each province.
According to Figs. 1 and 2, precision of the methods calibrated
has been increased for all provinces. The R2 values are less than
0.90 for only three provinces (AR, KS, and RK). In the calibrated
methods, a considerable change is observable in the coefficients
(increasing or decreasing) and R2 (increasing or constant) after
calibration (Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 2 and 4). There are many stud-
ies that reported increasing precision of radiation-based methods
for estimating the potential evapotranspiration after calibration
(Abbaspour 1991; Martinez and Thepadia 2010; Thepadia and
Martinez 2012; Xu et al. 2013; Valipour 2013a, b, c, d, e, f, g,
h, 2014a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, k, l, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w; Zhai
et al. 2010).

© ASCE 04014068-10 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.

 Table 5. Best Range of Weather Conditions to Use the Methods Based on the Results of the Current Study
Model Rs T T max T min RH u H n R2 MBE
Abtew 24.2–24.4 16–18 21.0–22.5 — — — — — 0.99 0.00
Berengena-Gavilan — 16–18 22.5–24 9–11 35–40 — 1,400–1,600 >270 1.00 0.08
Caprio <23.2 12–14 — — — — — — 0.96 0.26
Castaneda-Rao 23.8–24 16–18 — — — — — — 0.93 0.00
Christiansen 23.6–23.8 14–16 — — — — — — 0.69 −0.35
de Bruin 24.4–24.6 16–18 — — — — — — 0.93 0.27
Doorenbos-Pruitt 24.8–25.0 24–26 — — 40–45 2.50–2.75 — — 0.66 1.85
Hansen 23.8–24.0 16–18 — — — — — — 0.93 0.12
Irmak 24.4–24.6 16–18 — — — — — — 0.90 0.12
Jensen-Haise <23.2 12–14 18.0–19.5 5–7 — — 1,200–1,400 — 0.95 −0.18
Jones-Ritchie >25.0 — 25.5–27.0 9–11 — — — — 0.98 0.08
Makkink 23.6–23.8 14–16 — — — — — — 0.92 −0.07
McGuinness-Bordne 23.8–24.0 18–20 — — — — — — 0.98 −0.22
Modified Copais 24.8–25.0 24–26 — — — — — — 0.85 1.12
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Modified Jensen-Haise — 12–14 19.5–21.0 5–7 — — 1,000–1,200 210–220 0.92 −0.42

Modified Priestley-Taylor — 16–18 22.5–24.0 11–13 70–75 — <200 <180 0.99 −0.10
Modified Turc 23.6–23.8 — 14–16 — — — — — 0.93 0.38
Priestley-Taylor — 16–18 22.5–24.0 11–13 70–75 — <200 <180 0.99 0.07
Stephens 23.2–23.4 10–12 — — — — — — 0.99 0.02
Stephens-Stewart 23.8–24.0 18–20 — — — — — — 0.99 −0.19
Turc <23.2 12–14 — — — — — — 0.96 −0.08
Xu-Singh — 18–20 16.5–18.0 5–7 60–65 — 1,200–1,400 230–240 0.26 −1.51

Note: T = average daily air temperature (°C); u = mean daily wind speed at 2 m (m=s); T min = minimum air temperature (°C); T max = maximum
air temperature (°C); RH = average relative humidity (%); H = elevation (m); n = actual duration of sunshine (hr); Rs = solar radiation
(MJ=m2 =day).

Therefore, calibration is a necessary tool for modification of
radiation-based methods to increase precision of estimation and to
adopt the best methods for weather conditions (local conditions)
of each province. In the methods calibrated (Fig. 2), the St.
(for ZA and LO) and the SS (for SE) estimated the potential
evapotranspiration better than the other methods.
Some graphs have R2 of 1.0. They are indicating a very good
fit between the FPM method and the best radiation based-method
for those provinces after calibration and underline that calibration
is a reliable approach to achieve the highest accuracy in those
provinces.
Distinguishing Various Regions Based on Weather
Conditions
In this study, radiation-based methods were compared for 31
provinces in Iran. In each province, weather conditions are different
from other provinces. Therefore, there is a need to distinguish vari-
ous regions to better compare and discuss the applicability of each
method based on weather conditions.
The results indicate that each method estimates the potential
evapotranspiration under specific weather conditions. The maps
of annual average of the weather parameters have been provided
to detect the best conditions (range of weather parameters) under
which each method can estimate the potential evapotranspiration
with maximum precision (Figs. 3 and 4).
Fig. 3 shows annual average of solar radiation and mean,
maximum, and minimum temperature in all 31 provinces of
Iran, and Fig. 4 shows annual average of relative humidity, eleva-
tion, sunshine, and wind speed in all 31 provinces of Iran. As
shown, value of solar radiation is more than 25.0 MJ · m−2 · day−1
for south of Iran, and it is less than 24.0 MJ · m−2 · day−1 for north
of Iran. The mean temperature is less than 14°C for northwest of
Iran, and it is more than 24°C near the Persian Gulf. The maximum
temperature is more than 28.5°C near the Persian Gulf, and it is
less than 19.5°C for northwest of Iran. The minimum temperature
is more than 17°C near the Persian Gulf, it is less than 7°C for
northwest of Iran, and it is from 11 to 15°C near the Caspian
Sea. The relative humidity is from 65 to 70% near the Persian Gulf,
it is from 50 to 65% for the northwest, and it is more than 70% near
the Caspian Sea. The wind speed is from 2.50 to 3.50 m · s−1 for
near the Persian Gulf. The elevation is from 1,200 to 1,400 MSL for
the northwest of Iran, it is less than 200 MSL near the Persian Gulf
and Caspian Sea, and it is more than 2,000 MSL for CB. The sun-
shine is less than 180 h · month−1 near the Caspian Sea, and it is
from 230 to 240 h · month−1 for the northwest of Iran. Therefore,
the provinces of Iran are divided into five categories (1) the prov-
inces near the Persian Gulf (KH, BU, and HO), (2) the provinces of
near the Caspian Sea [GI, Mazandaran (MZ), and Gorgan (GO)],
(3) the provinces northeast of Iran [West Azerbaijan (WA), EA,
AR, and ZA], (4) CB (because of the difference weather conditions
than the near provinces), and (5) the other provinces. These catego-
ries are useful for future studies over Iran.
Determining the Best Values of Weather Parameters
for the Best Methods to Become Applicable for Future
Studies
It is very important that output of the study be applicable for future
investigations. Therefore, for this purpose, the best values of
weather parameters were determined.
The maps of annual average of weather parameters (Figs. 3
and 4) are useful not only for the mentioned categories, but also
for determining the best values of each parameter for which the
best accurate prediction of the radiation-based methods is obtained
(Table 5).
In Table 5, for instance, values of the Ab. model were
recommended based on Figs. 3 and 4 for IL (This method
needs only three weather parameters, and their values are
Rs ¼ 24.2–24.4 MJ=m2 =day, T ¼ 16–18°C, T max ¼ 21.0–22.5°C
for IL) because the best R2 for this method (Tables 3 and 4)
was obtained in the IL province. Therefore, the results indicate

© ASCE 04014068-11 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Best method for each province and their error (data calculated
from Tables 3–5)
that in the future studies, the Ab. method can estimate the
potential evapotranspiration for these weather conditions better
than other conditions, or in a region with weather conditions similar
to IL, the Ab. method can be superior among radiation-based
methods.
According to Table 5, the best performance of the Ca., JH, and
Tu. methods is in similar weather conditions. This is true for the
PT, St., and XS. Researchers can find other instances of this accord-
ing to Table 5. However, the precision is different (e.g., 0.26 and
0.99 for the XS and PT methods, respectively). This underlines
the important role of selection of the best method for a speci-
fied weather condition. Furthermore, researchers can see different
ranges in the other methods (Table 5). Therefore, researchers can
use the radiation-based methods for other regions (in other coun-
tries) based on Table 5 with respect to their errors. The best temper-
atures to use radiation-based equations are 10–26°C, 16.5–24.0°C
(with the exception of JR), and 5–13°C for mean, maximum, and
minimum temperature, respectively. The results are also useful
for selecting the best model when researchers must apply mass
transfer-based models based on available data.
© ASCE 04014068-12
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.
Comparison of the Best Methods with Their Errors for
Each Province
When a method is introduced as the best method for a certain
province, it should be considered with its error.
Fig. 5 was plotted to detect the best method for each province
versus its error (before calibration).
First, although the St. method is the most useful method for
most provinces of Iran (10 provinces), but precision of it is less
than 0.99 (with the exception of LO and WA). It reveals that
the St. method is a general method for estimating the potential
evapotranspiration (large number of application and fair precision).
Thus, researchers use other methods that include temperature, mass
transfer, and pan evaporation-based methods to estimate the poten-
tial evapotranspiration in these 10 provinces (they may increase
the accuracy of estimating). For instance, values of solar radiation
are from 23.2 to 23.4 MJ · m−2 · day−1 for NK and WA; hence, the
radiation-based methods may not be the best method for these
provinces. The second favorite (selected for six provinces) method
is the Ab. for which the precision of estimating is less than 0.99
[with the exception of YA and Ilam (IL), both 0.99]. However, the
precision of estimating is more than 0.96 for all provinces of Iran
(with the exception of AR, KS, and EA). It is revealed that only if
researchers use the radiation-based methods for suitable (based on
Table 5) and specific (based on Figs. 3 and 4) weather conditions,
the highest precision in estimating will be obtained. Meanwhile,
precision of estimating is more than 0.96 for the categories I, II,
IV, and V (with the exception of KS 0.91).
Summary and Conclusions
In this study, 22 radiation-based methods were used to estimate the
potential evapotranspiration in 31 provinces of Iran.
The precision of estimation by radiation-based methods is very
sensitive to variations of the parameters used in each method. Thus,
the coefficients of the radiation-based methods need to be adjusted
based on weather conditions of each province.
According to the results, calibration is a tool required to modify
radiation-based methods to increase the precision of estimation and
to adopt the best methods to weather conditions (local conditions)
of each province. In the methods calibrated, the BG estimates the
potential evapotranspiration for ES better than the other methods.
The provinces of Iran are divided into five categories (at least);
the provinces near the Persian Gulf (KH, BU, and HO), the prov-
inces near the Caspian Sea (GI, MZ, and GO), the provinces of
northeast of Iran (WA, EA, AR, and ZA), CB (the different weather
conditions compared with the near provinces), and the other prov-
inces. These categories are useful for future studies over Iran.
Only if the radiation-based methods are used for suitable and
specific weather conditions (based on weather conditions and the
categories), the highest precision of estimation is obtained.
The maps of the annual average of weather parameters are use-
ful not only for the mentioned categories but also for determining
the best values of each parameter for which the best precision of the
radiation-based methods is obtained.
It is possible to use radiation-based methods for other regions
(in other countries) based on the best values of each weather param-
eter for the best methods with respect to their errors.
References
Abbaspour, K. C. (1991). “A comparison of different methods of estimating
energy-limited evapotranspiration in the Peace River region of British
Columbia.” Atmos. Ocean, 29(4), 686–698.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Abtew, W. (1996). “Evapotranspiration measurements and methoding for
three wetland systems in south Florida.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.,
32(3), 465–473.
Alexandris, S., and Kerkides, P. (2003). “New empirical formula for hourly
estimations of reference evapotranspiration.” Agr. Water Manage.,
60(3), 157–180.
Alexandris, S., Kerkides, P., and Liakatas, A. (2006). “Daily reference
evapotranspiration estimates by the ‘Copais’ approach.” Agr. Water
Manage., 82(3), 371–386.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). “Crop
evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements.”
FAO irrigation and drainage paper No. 56, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Banihabib, M. E., Valipour, M., and Behbahani, S. M. R. (2012).
“Comparison of autoregressive static and artificial dynamic neural
network for the forecasting of monthly inflow of Dez reservoir.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 13(4), 1–14.
Berengena, J., and Gavilan, P. (2005). “Reference evapotranspiration
estimation in a highly advective semiarid environment.” J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2005)131:2(147), 147–163.
Bois, B., et al. (2008). “Using remotely sensed solar radiation data for po-
tential evapotranspiration estimation at a daily time step.” Agric. For.
Meteorol., 148(4), 619–630.
Caprio, J. M. (1974). “The solar thermal unit concept in problems related
to plant development and potential evapotranspiration.” Phenology
and seasonality methoding, ecological studies, Vol. 8, H. Lieth, ed.
Springer, New York, 353–364.
Castaneda, L., and Rao, P. (2005). “Comparison of methods for estimating
reference evapotranspiration in southern California.” J. Environ.
Hydrol., 13(14), 1–10.
Christiansen, J. E. (1968). “Pan evaporation and evapotranspiration from
climatic data.” J. Irrig. Drain. Div., 94(2), 243–265.
de Bruin, H. A. R. (1981). “The determination of (reference crop) evapo-
transpiration from routine weather data.” Comm. Hydrol. Res., 28,
25–37.
de Bruin, H. A. R., and Lablans, W. N. (1998). “Reference crop evapotran-
spiration determined with a modified Makkink equation.” Hydrol.
Process., 12(7), 1053–1062.
de Bruin, H. A. R., and Stricker, J. N. M. (2000). “Evaporation of grass
under non-restricted soil moisture conditions.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 45(3),
391–406.
Ding, R., Kang, S., Li, F., Zhang, Y., and Tong, L. (2013). “Evapotranspi-
ration measurement and estimation using modified Priestley–Taylor
model in an irrigated maize field with mulching.” Agric. For. Meteorol.,
168, 140–148.
Doorenbos, J., and Pruitt, W. (1977). “Crop water requirements.” Irrigation
and Drainage Paper 24, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, 144.
Estevez, J., Gavilan, P., and Berengena, J. (2009). “Sensitivity analysis of a
Penman–Monteith type equation to estimate reference evapotranspira-
tion in southern Spain.” Hydrol. Process., 23(23), 3342–3353.
Hansen, S. (1984). “Estimation of potential and actual evapotranspiration.”
Nord. Hydrol., 15(4–5), 205–212.
Hargreaves, G. H., and Allen, R. G. (2003). “History and evaluation
of hargreaves evapotranspiration equation.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2003)129:1(53), 53–63.
Irmak, S., Irmak, A., Allen, R. G., and Jones, J. W. (2003). “Solar and net
radiation-based equations to estimate reference evapotranspiration in
humid climates.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437
(2003)129:5(336), 336–347.
Jensen, M. E. (1966). “Empirical methods of estimating or predicting
evapotranspiration using radiation.” Evapotranspiration and its role
in water resources management, Vol. 64, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, 49–53.
Jensen, M. E., and Haise, H. R. (1963). “Estimation of evapotranspiration
from solar radiation.” J. Irrig. Drain. Div., 89, 15–41.
Jones, J. W., and Ritchie, J. T. (1990). “Crop growth methods. Management
of farm irrigation systems.” ASAE monograph no. 9, G. J. Hoffman,
T. A. Howel, and K. H. Solomon, eds., ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 63–89.
© ASCE 04014068-13
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.
Kisi, O. (2007). “Evapotranspiration modelling from climatic data using a
neural computing technique.” Hydrol. Process., 21(14), 1925–1934.
Makkink, G. F. (1957). “Testing the Penman formula by means of
lysimeters.” J. Inst. Water Eng., 11, 277–288.
Martinez, C. J., and Thepadia, M. (2010). “Estimating reference evapotran-
spiration with minimum data in Florida.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000214, 494–501.
McGuinness, J. L., and Bordne, E. F. (1972). “A comparison of lysimeter-
derived potential evapotranspiration with computed values.” Technical
Bulletin 1452, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Priestley, C. H. B., and Taylor, R. J. (1972). “On the assessment of surface
heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters.” Mon. Weather
Rev., 100(2), 81–92.
Rahimi, S., Gholami Sefidkouhi, M. A., Raeini-Sarjaz, M., and Valipour,
M. (2014). “Estimation of actual evapotranspiration by using MODIS
images (A case study: Tajan catchment).” Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 1.
Samani, Z. A., and Pessarakli, M. (1986). “Estimating potential crop
evapotranspiration with minimum data in Arizona.” Trans. ASABE.,
29(2), 522–524.
Schrader, F., et al. (2013). “Estimating precipitation and actual evapotran-
spiration from precision lysimeter measurements.” Procedia Environ.
Sci., 19, 543–552.
Stephens, J. C. (1965). “Discussion of ‘Estimating evaporation from
insolation’.” J. Hydraul. Div., 91, 171–182.
Stephens, J. C., and Stewart, E. H. (1963). “A comparison of procedures for
computing evaporation and evapotranspiration.” Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol.
Pub., 62, 123–133.
Suleiman, A., and Hoogenboom, G. (2007). “Comparison of Priestley-
Taylor and FAO-56 Penman-Monteith for daily reference evapotranspi-
ration estimation in Georgia.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9437(2007)133:2(175), 175–182.
Thepadia, M., and Martinez, C. (2012). “Regional calibration of solar
radiation and reference evapotranspiration estimates with minimal
data in Florida.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774
.0000394, 111–119.
Tian, F., Qiu, G., Yang, Y., Lu, Y., and Xiong, Y. (2013). “Estimation of
evapotranspiration and its partition based on an extended three-
temperature model and MODIS products.” J. Hydrol., 498, 210–220.
Tian, H., Wen, J., Wang, C. H., Liu, R., and Lu, D. R. (2012). “Effect of
pixel scale on evapotranspiration estimation by remote sensing over oasis
areas in north-western China.” Environ. Earth Sci., 67(8), 2301–2313.
Trajkovic, S., and Kolakovic, S. (2009a). “Evaluation of reference
evapotranspiration equations under humid conditions.” Water Resour.
Manage., 23(14), 3057–3067.
Trajkovic, S., and Kolakovic, S. (2009b). “Wind-adjusted Turc equation for
estimating reference evapotranspiration at humid European locations.”
Nord. Hydrol., 40(1), 45–52.
Turc, L. (1961). “Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential
evapotranspiration: A simple climatic formula evolved up to date.”
Ann. Agron., 12, 13–49.
Valipour, M. (2012a). “A comparison between horizontal and vertical
drainage systems (include pipe drainage, open ditch drainage, and
pumped wells) in anisotropic soils.” IOSR J. Mech. Civil Eng., 4(1),
7–12.
Valipour, M. (2012b). “Ability of Box-Jenkins models to estimate of refer-
ence potential evapotranspiration (A case study: Mehrabad synoptic
station, Tehran, Iran).” IOSR J. Agr. Veter. Sci., 1(5), 1–11.
Valipour, M. (2012c). “Comparison of surface irrigation simulation
models: Full hydrodynamic, zero inertia, kinematic wave.” J. Agr.
Sci., 4(12), 68–74.
Valipour, M. (2012d). “Critical areas of Iran for agriculture water manage-
ment according to the annual rainfall.” Eur. J. Sci. Res., 84(4), 600–608.
Valipour, M. (2012e). “Determining possible optimal values of required
flow, nozzle diameter, and wetted area for linear traveling laterals.”
Int. J. Eng. Sci., 1(1), 37–43.
Valipour, M. (2012f). “Effect of drainage parameters change on amount of
drain discharge in subsurface drainage systems.” IOSR J. Agr. Veter.
Sci., 1(4), 10–18.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Valipour, M. (2012g). “Hydro-module determination for Vanaei village in
Eslam Abad Gharb, Iran.” ARPN J. Agr. Biol. Sci., 7(12), 968–976.
Valipour, M. (2012h). “Number of required observation data for rainfall
forecasting according to the climate conditions.” Am. J. Sci. Res.,
74, 79–86.
Valipour, M. (2012i). “Scrutiny of pressure loss, friction slope, inflow
velocity, velocity head, and Reynolds number in center pivot.” Int. J.
Adv. Sci. Tech. Res., 2(5), 703–711.
Valipour, M. (2012j). “Sprinkle and trickle irrigation system design using
tapered pipes for pressure loss adjusting.” J. Agr. Sci., 4(12), 125–133.
Valipour, M. (2013a). “Comparison of different drainage systems usable for
solution of environmental crises in soil.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Envi-
ronmental Crises and Its Solutions, Kish Island, Iran.
Valipour, M. (2013b). “Estimation of surface water supply index using
snow water equivalent.” Adv. Agr. Sci. Eng. Res., 3(1), 587–602.
Valipour, M. (2013c). “Evolution of irrigation-equipped areas as share of
cultivated areas.” Irrig. Drain. Sys. Eng., 2(1), e114.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lennis Avila on 07/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Valipour, M. (2013d). “Increasing irrigation efficiency by management
strategies: Cutback and surge irrigation.” ARPN J. Agr. Biol. Sci.,
8(1), 35–43.
Valipour, M. (2013e). “Necessity of irrigated and rainfed agriculture in the
world.” Irrig. Drain. Sys. Eng., S9, e001.
Valipour, M. (2013f). “Need to update of irrigation and water resources
information according to the progresses of agricultural knowledge.”
Agrotechnol, S10, e001.
Valipour, M. (2013g). “Scrutiny of inflow to the drains applicable for im-
provement of soil environmental conditions.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on
Environmental Crises and Its Solutions, Kish Island, Iran.
Valipour, M. (2013h). “Use of surface water supply index to assessing of
water resources management in Colorado and Oregon, US.” Adv. Agr.
Sci. Eng. Res., 3(2), 631–640.
Valipour, M. (2014a). “Analysis of potential evapotranspiration using lim-
ited weather data.” Appl. Water Sci., in press.
Valipour, M. (2014b). “Application of new mass transfer formulae for com-
putation of evapotranspiration.” J. Appl. Water Eng. Res., 2(1), 33–46.
Valipour, M. (2014c). “Assessment of humidity-based equations to estimate
potential evapotranspiration.” Acta Adv. Agr. Sci., in press.
Valipour, M. (2014d). “Drainage, waterlogging, and salinity.” Arch. Agron.
Soil Sci., 60(12), 1625–1640.
Valipour, M. (2014e). “Future of agricultural water management in Africa.”
Arch. Agron. Soil. Sci., in press.
Valipour, M. (2014f). “Future of agricultural water management in Europe
based on socioeconomic indices.” Acta Adv. Agr. Sci., 2(7), 1–18.
Valipour, M. (2014g). “Future of agricultural water management in
Americas.” J. Agr. Res., 52(2), 245–268.
Valipour, M. (2014h). “Future of the area equipped for irrigation.” Arch.
Agron. Soil Sci., 60(12), 1641–1660.
Valipour, M. (2014i). Handbook of drainage engineering problems,
OMICS Group eBooks, Foster city, CA.
Valipour, M. (2014j). Handbook of environmental engineering problems,
OMICS Group eBooks, Foster City, CA.
Valipour, M. (2014k). Handbook of hydraulic engineering problems,
OMICS Group eBooks, Foster City, CA.
Valipour, M. (2014l). Handbook of hydrologic engineering problems,
OMICS Group eBooks, Foster City, CA.
Valipour, M. (2014m). Handbook of irrigation engineering problems,
OMICS Group eBooks, Foster City, CA.
Valipour, M. (2014n). Handbook of water engineering problems, OMICS
Group eBooks, Foster City, CA.
Valipour, M. (2014o). “Importance of solar radiation, temperature, relative
humidity, and wind speed for calculation of reference evapotranspira-
tion.” Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 1.
Valipour, M. (2014p). “Investigation of Valiantzas’ evapotranspiration
equation in Iran.” Theor. Appl. Climat., 10.1007/s00704-014-1240-x.
Valipour, M. (2014q). “Land use policy and agricultural water management
of the previous half of century in Africa.” Appl. Water Sci., in press.
Valipour, M. (2014r). “Prediction of irrigated agriculture in Asia Pacific
using FAO indices.” Acta Adv. Agr. Sci., 2(9), 40–53.
© ASCE 04014068-14
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015.20.
Valipour, M. (2014s). “Pressure on renewable water resources by irrigation
to 2060.” Acta Adv. Agr. Sci., 2(8), 32–42.
Valipour, M. (2014t). “Runoff long term study using SARIMA and
ARIMA models in the United States.” Meteorol. Appl., in press.
Valipour, M. (2014u). “Study of different climatic conditions to assess the
role of solar radiation in reference crop evapotranspiration equations.”
Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 1.
Valipour, M. (2014v). “Temperature analysis of reference evapotranspira-
tion models.” Meteorol. Appl., in press.
Valipour, M. (2014w). “Use of average data of 181 synoptic stations for
estimation of reference crop evapotranspiration by temperature-based
methods.” Water Resour. Manage., 28(12), 4237–4255.
Valipour, M., et al. (2014). “Agricultural water management in the world
during past half century.” Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 1.
Valipour, M., Banihabib, M. E., and Behbahani, S. M. R. (2012a).
“Monthly inflow forecasting using autoregressive artificial neural
network.” J. Appl. Sci., 12(20), 2139–2147.
Valipour, M., Banihabib, M. E., and Behbahani, S. M. R. (2012b).
“Parameters estimate of autoregressive moving average and autoregres-
sive integrated moving average models and compare their ability for
inflow forecasting.” J. Math. Stat., 8(3), 330–338.
Valipour, M., Banihabib, M. E., and Behbahani, S. M. R. (2013a).
“Comparison of the ARMA, ARIMA, and the autoregressive artificial
neural network models in forecasting the monthly inflow of Dez dam
reservoir.” J. Hydrol., 476, 433–441.
Valipour, M., and Montazar, A. A. (2012a). “An evaluation of SWDC and
WinSRFR models to optimize of infiltration parameters in furrow
irrigation.” Am. J. Sci. Res., 69, 128–142.
Valipour, M., and Montazar, A. A. (2012b). “Optimize of all effective in-
filtration parameters in furrow irrigation using visual basic and genetic
algorithm programming.” Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 6(6), 132–137.
Valipour, M., and Montazar, A. A. (2012c). “Sensitive analysis of
optimized infiltration parameters in SWDC model.” Adv. Environ. Biol.,
6(9), 2574–2581.
Valipour, M., Mousavi, S. M., Valipour, R., and Rezaei, E. (2012c). “Air,
water, and soil pollution study in industrial units using environmental
flow diagram.” J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res., 2(12), 12365–12372.
Valipour, M., Mousavi, S. M., Valipour, R., and Rezaei, E. (2012d).
“SHCP: Soil heat calculator program.” IOSR J. Appl. Phys., 2(3),
44–50.
Valipour, M., Mousavi, S. M., Valipour, R., and Rezaei, E. (2013b).
“A new approach for environmental crises and its solutions by computer
modeling.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Environmental Crises and Its
Solutions, Kish Island, Iran.
Valipour, M., Mousavi, S. M., Valipour, R., and Rezaei, E. (2013c). “Deal
with environmental challenges in civil and energy engineering projects
using a new technology.” J. Civil Environ. Eng. 3(1), 127.
Willmott, C. J., and Matsuura, K. (2006). “On the use of dimensioned
measures of error to evaluate the performance of spatial interpolators.”
Int. J. Geog. Inf. Sci., 20(1), 89–102.
Xu, C. Y., and Chen, D. (2005). “Comparison of seven models for estima-
tion of evapotranspiration and groundwater recharge using lysimeter
measurement data in Germany.” Hydrol. Process., 19(18), 3717–3734.
Xu, C. Y., and Singh, V. P. (2000). “Evaluation and generalization of
radiation-based methods for calculating evaporation.” Hydrol. Process.,
14(2), 339–349.
Xu, C. Y., Singh, V. P., Chen, Y. D., and Chen, D. (2008). “Evaporation and
evapotranspiration.” Hydrology and hydraulics, 1st Ed., V. P. Singh,
ed., Water Resources Publications, 229–276.
Xu, J., Peng, S., Ding, J., Wei, Q., and Yu, Y. (2013). “Evaluation and
calibration of simple methods for daily reference evapotranspiration es-
timation in humid east China.” Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 59(6), 845–858.
Ye, J., Guo, A., and Sun, G. (2009). “Statistical analysis of reference evapo-
transpiration on the Tibetan Plateau.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9437(2009)135:2(134), 134–140.
Zhai, L., Feng, Q., Li, Q., and Xu, C. (2010). “Comparison and modifica-
tion of equations for calculating evapotranspiration (ET) with data from
Gansu Province, northwest China.” Irrig. Drain., 59(4), 477–490.
J. Hydrol. Eng.