Search

This study evaluates the performance of four evapotranspiration methods (Priestley-Taylor, Penman-Monteith, Hargreaves and Makkink) of differing complexity in a semiarid environment in north China. The results are compared to observed water vapour fluxes derived from eddy flux measurements. The analysis became necessary after discharge simulations using an automatically calibrated version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) failed to reproduce runoff measurements. Although the study area receives most of the annual rainfall during the vegetation period, high temperatures can cause water scarcity. We investigate which evapotranspiration method is most suitable for this environment and whether the model performance of SWAT can be improved with the most adequate evapotranspiration method. The evapotranspiration models were tested in two consecutive years with different rainfall amounts. In general, the simple Hargreaves and Makkink equations outmatch the more complex Priestley-Taylor and Penman-Monteith methods, although their performance depended on water availability. Effects on the quality of SWAT runoff simulations, however, remained minor. Although evapotranspiration is an important process in the hydrology of this steppe environment, our analysis indicates that other driving factors still need to be identified to improve SWAT simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The eddy covariance technique was used to measure evapotranspiration (ET) at four different grazing intensity sites to investigate the grazing effects on ET in the semiarid steppe ecosystems of Inner Mongolia. By reducing available energy, and decreasing soil water content (SWC), grazing decreased ET on a seasonal scale compared with the site ungrazed since 1979 (UG79). The most important climatic factor controlling ET on daily scale shifted from SWC to Net radiation (R n ) when grazing intensity increased. SWC, R n and air temperature (or vapor pressure deficit) can explain 59%–71% of the variation in daily ET. On the other hand, leaf area index (LAI) affected ET slightly at UG79 under the commonly limited soil water conditions. Even no effect of LAI at the heavily grazed site was detected. This suggests that the direct effect of grazing reducing LAI on ET is not significant in this semiarid steppe ecosystem. Soil evaporation compensates for most of the loss in transpiration due to reduced LAI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A roving tower concept was used to compare a semi-arid grassland site in Inner Mongolia (China), which was fenced in 1979 and ungrazed thereafter (UG79) with differently grazed semi-arid steppe ecosystems. The study was conducted during three consecutive years characterised by contrasting precipitation. The different grazing intensities included continuously and moderately grazed (CG), winter grazed (WG), and heavily grazed (HG). Here, we compare the energy fluxes and surface parameters that characterise the differently managed plots. The main focus is on sensible heat flux (H), available energy (AE), surface temperature (T ( s )), and surface albedo (alpha). Systematic errors were excluded by a side-to-side intercomparison of the instruments, and systematic climatic differences were minimised by the close distance between the fixed and the roving eddy covariance tower. Statistically, AE and T ( s ) were always significantly different between two simultaneously measured grazing intensities. Whereas AE was higher at UG79 in all years (mean difference of about 19Wm(-2)), T ( s ) was typically lower at UG79 (mean differences of 0.4 degrees C to about 2 degrees C). The exception was the end of the vegetation period in 2004 when T ( s ) was 0.6 degrees C higher at UG79 compared to CG. At UG79 alpha was typically significantly lower, and H was typically significantly higher. Consequently, latent heat fluxes (both as energy balance residual and directly measured) do not differ much between the different grazing intensities. It is concluded, that (1) the roving tower concept is able to detect differences due to grazing, (2) differences between the sites can be attributed to real surface differences, and (3) differences due to grazing intensities are small compared to interannual differences in surface fluxes.