Applicability and improvement of different potential evapotranspiration models in different climate zones of China

Abstract

Abstract Background Accurate estimation of potential evapotranspiration (PET) is the key for studying land-air interaction hydrological processes. Several models are used to estimate the PET based on standardized meteorological data. Although combination-based models have the highest level performance estimation of PET, they require more meteorological data and may therefore be difficult to apply in areas lacking meteorological observation data. Results The results showed significant differences in the spatial trends of PET calculated by different models in China, the Doorenbots–Pruitts model revealed the highest PET (1902.6 mm), and the Kuzmin model revealed the lowest PET (349.6 mm), with the largest difference being 5.5 times. The Romanenko and the Rohwer models were the recommended temperature-based and aerodynamic-based models. On the other hand, the Abtew model was more suitable for arid and semi-arid regions, while the Priestley–Taylor model was more suitable for humid regions. Combination-based models revealed ideal calculation accuracies, among which the Penman–Monteith model was the best option for PET calculation. Conclusions The accuracy range of Romanenko, Rohwer, Abten, Priestley Taylor, and Penman Monteith models improved in MPZ and TCZ is higher than that improved in TMZ and SMZ. This does not mean that the improved models have higher accuracy in MPZ and TCZ than in TMZ and SMZ. On the contrary, the original model performed poorly in MPZ and TCZ, so the improved accuracy was relatively large. The unimproved model was already more suitable in TMZ and SMZ, so the improved accuracy was relatively small. Therefore, regional calibration of the PET models can improve the accuracy and applicability of PET calculation, providing a reference for studying hydrological processes in different climatic zones.

Keywords

• Potential evapotranspiration
• Climatic zone
• Temperature-based model
• Aerodynamic-based model
• Radiation-based model
• Combination-based model