Direct (Lysimeter) |
This device consistes of a block of soil covered with vegetation. The
block of soil is initially removed from the forest and placed into a container.
Next the block of soil is returned to its original location so that the
container as well as the soil is set into the ground. Over time, the input
of precipitation is measured via rain aguages and the drainage output is
recorded. During this same interval, the block of soil is frequently massed
to estimate the amunt of water loss via evapotranspiration. evapotranspiration. ∝ precipitation - drainage - ∆mass |
Indirect (Water balance) |
Although lysimeters may be effective in accurately determining evapotranspiration
levels, on a large scale it would be impossible to implement such a design.
Researchers therefore have come to use large scale measurements of rainfall
to determine evapotranspiration levels. Typically rainfall data is gathered
from satellites and then using a particular algorith, evapotranspiration
is determined. Adding energy balance considerations, one can derive more accurate predictions of evapotranspiration and evaporation. For specific plants, a simple equation can be written to express the maximum evapotranspiration (ET M ) for that plant. This value is related to the maximum evapotranspiration for a reference plant (ET0) such as green grass and a dimensionless coefficient for the specific plants (KC). ET 0 = A + BRG + CRGTAThis however, is just one estimation of evapotranspiration. Countless other studies have developed estimations based on similar principles. Another such equation relates evapotranspiration to net radiation (Rn), surface temperature (Ts), and air temperature (Ta). ET = Rn + A - B (Ts - Ta),where A and B are constants. |
Research
|
Rainfall
|
Transpiration
|
Evapotranspiration
|
Runoff
|
|||||
mm
|
mm
|
%
|
mm/day
|
mm
|
%
|
mm/day
|
mm
|
%
|
|
Marques et al. 1980 |
2328 |
1260 |
54.2 |
3.5 |
1068 |
45.8 |
|||
23289 |
1000 |
43.0 |
2.7 |
1328 |
57.0 |
||||
2328 |
1330 |
57.1 |
3.6 |
998 |
42.9 |
||||
Villa Nova et al. 1976 |
2000 |
1460 |
73.0 |
4.0 |
540 |
27.0 |
|||
1168 |
58.4 |
3.2 |
832 |
41.6 |
|||||
2105 |
1569 |
73.4 |
4.3 |
532 |
26.6 |
||||
Molion 1975 |
2379 |
1146 |
48.2 |
3.2 |
1233 |
51.8 |
|||
Ribeiro et al. 1979 |
2478 |
1536 |
62.2 |
4.2 |
942 |
38.0 |
|||
1508 |
60.8 |
4.1 |
970 |
39.2 |
|||||
Ipean 1978 |
2179 |
1475 |
67.5 |
4.0 |
704 |
32.5 |
|||
1320 |
60.6 |
3.6 |
859 |
39.4 |
|||||
Dmet 1978 |
2207 |
1452 |
65.8 |
4.0 |
755 |
34.2 |
|||
1306 |
59.2 |
3.6 |
901 |
40.8 |
|||||
Jordan et al. 1981 |
3664 |
1722 |
47.0 |
4.7 |
1905 |
52.0 |
5.2 |
1759 |
48.0 |
Leopolo et al. 1981 |
2089 |
1014 |
48.5 |
2.7 |
1542 |
74.1 |
4.1 |
5441 |
25.9 |
Leopolo et al. 1982 |
2075 |
1287 |
62.0 |
3.5 |
1675 |
80.7 |
4.6 |
400 |
19.3 |
Shuttleworth 1988 |
2636 |
992 |
37.6 |
2.7 |
1320 |
50.0 |
3.6 |
||
Able-2B 1987 (1 month) |
290 |
157 |
54.1 |
5.2 |
Surface Variable |
Control |
Deforested |
Precent Difference |
Evapotranspiration (m/d) |
3.12 |
2.27 |
-27.2% |
Precipitation (m/d) |
6.60 |
5.26 |
-20.3% |
Soil Moisture (cm) |
16.13 |
6.66 |
-58.7% |
Runoff (m/d) |
3.40 |
3.00 |
-11.9% |
Net Raditation (W/m^2) |
147.29 |
125.96 |
-14.4% |
Temperature (C) |
23.55 |
25.98 |
10.3% |
Sensible Heat (W/m^2) |
57.19 |
60.15 |
5.2% |
Bowen Ratio |
0.85 |
1.50 |
76.5% |
Total Precipitation (P) (mm/year) |
Evapotranspiration (E) (mm/year) |
E-P |
E/P |
Precipitable Water (mm) |
|
Control |
2464 |
1657 |
-807 |
0.67 |
37.7 |
Deforestation |
1821 |
1161 |
-661 |
0.63 |
35.4 |
Difference |
-642 |
-496 |
+146 |
-0.04 |
-2.3 |
Change (%) |
-26.1 |
-30.0 |
+18.0 |
-5.9 |
-6.1 |