Comparative Analysis of METRIC Model and Atmometer Methods for Estimating Actual Evapotranspiration

<div>Crop coefficient curves based on the alfalfa reference crop coefficient in three fields at the Brookings, Volga, and Oak Lake sites. The red circles indicate the average <svg height="11.927pt" id="M138" style="vertical-align:-3.291101pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 13.6165 11.927" width="13.6165pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M743 650H503L496 622L527 618C563 613 564 603 532 573C449 495 371 431 323 392C301 374 272 355 246 346L280 522C297 609 300 614 379 622L385 650H135L129 622C209 614 215 609 198 522L124 133C106 39 99 35 23 28L17 0H271L277 28C193 35 192 39 208 133L239 316C264 328 280 325 303 288C368 183 435 90 502 0H652L659 28C602 34 584 43 543 94C495 154 403 283 347 369L574 554C634 603 659 612 735 624L743 650Z" id="g113-76"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,9.23,3.132)"><path d="M387 400C387 425 348 451 303 451C247 451 176 414 132 376C69 322 24 228 24 148C24 43 74 -12 147 -12C211 -12 301 33 363 103L346 128C319 99 249 51 193 51C148 51 112 84 112 165C112 230 130 287 154 330C170 359 199 400 243 400C277 400 304 383 326 354C333 345 343 343 354 348C378 360 387 382 387 400Z" id="g50-100"></path></g></svg> (<svg height="11.9348pt" id="M139" style="vertical-align:-3.18146pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.75334 19.3971 11.9348" width="19.3971pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M517 162C503 123 484 88 467 68C445 42 417 34 341 34C291 34 256 34 237 47C219 59 213 81 213 128V317H308C395 317 402 311 415 240H444V431H415C403 364 398 356 307 356H213V584C213 613 215 616 246 616H322C394 616 421 609 435 587C448 566 458 544 467 502L496 506C493 557 488 625 488 650H42V622C120 616 128 612 128 523V125C128 43 120 35 29 28V0H511C520 31 540 125 546 158L517 162Z" id="g190-70"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,7.332,0)"><path d="M592 498C586 556 582 629 581 675H560C545 656 537 650 510 650H115C87 650 74 652 60 675H40C38 620 33 555 28 495H57C69 539 77 568 89 585C102 607 122 616 205 616H267V123C267 44 259 34 168 28V0H454V28C360 34 352 44 352 123V616H422C498 616 514 608 531 584C542 568 552 543 562 495L592 498Z" id="g190-85"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,15.411,3.132)"><path d="M181 342V451C133 431 89 419 40 411V388C98 381 102 377 102 311V104C102 38 95 32 33 26V0H263V26C186 32 181 38 181 104V287C203 343 235 372 261 372C277 372 289 366 304 352C310 346 318 345 330 350C349 359 362 379 362 399C362 422 338 449 304 449C256 449 213 393 183 342H181Z" id="g190-115"></path></g></svg>F) values derived from the METRIC model.</div>

International Journal of Agronomy

fig6

Figure 6

Figure 6: Comparative Analysis of METRIC Model and Atmometer Methods for Estimating Actual Evapotranspiration 