Full Length Research Paper
Abstract
Evapotranspiration (ET) data from atmometers were compared against evapotranspiration estimated by the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith equation, recommended method, in order to evaluate the accuracy of atmometers. Measurements by 3 atmometers with grass cover and 3 atmometers with alfalfa cover were compared, for one growing season, to Penman Monteith based grass and alfalfa equation–(ET0_PM and ETr_PM,, respectively). Comparison between cumulative Evapotranspiration measured by atmometers and ET0_PM or ETr_PM showed that Atmometers, for both grass and alfalfa, underestimate evapotranspiration by 12.5-21 and 15% respectively. The three Atmometers with alfalfa cover give the same cumulative value (636 mm) compared to the atmometers with grass cover which exhibit different results (atmometers 1 and 3 (467 mm) and atmometers 2 gives 419 mm). Correlation between ET from atmometers and ETr_PM or ET0_PM estimates were generally good. Evaporation from atmometers with alfalfa cover showed the highest correlation to ETr_PM (R2 varying from 0.68 to 0.72) whereas evaporation from atmometers with grass cover present the lowest correlation (R2ranges from 0.49 to 0.68). The results indicated that with the proper regression equation and a good calibration, atmometers could be used to estimate ET for crop water requirement where evapotranspiration estimates are not available from weather stations.
Key words: Atmometer, evaporation, evapotranspiration, irrigation, Penman-Monteith equation.
Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0