Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorKonukçu, Fatih
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-11T14:45:31Z
dc.date.available2022-05-11T14:45:31Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.issn0885-6087
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6553
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/10066
dc.description.abstractThe Penman equation, which calculates potential evaporation, was modified by Staple (1974, Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 38: 837) to include in it the relative vapour pressure h, of an unsaturated soil to predict actual evaporation from a soil surface. This improved the prediction when the difference between the temperature of the soil surface and ambient air is relatively small. The objectives of this study were (i) to revise it further using the actual temperature of the soil surface and air to provide the upper boundary condition in computing evaporative flux from the soil surface and (ii) to determine the range of water content for which the modified form of the Penman equation is applicable. The method adopted was tested by a series of outdoor experiments with a clay soil. The method of Staple (1974) overestimated the rate of evaporation above the water content 0.14 m(3) m(-3) (up to 30% deviation), whereas the new method agreed well with the measured rates (maximum 7% deviation). Below 0.14 m(3) m(-3) water content, both methods underestimated, but the Staple (1974) method deviated more from the measured values: the deviations were above 70% and around 30% for the Staple (1974) and the new methods respectively. Although the new method provided accurate solutions for a wider range of water content from saturation to the lower limit of the liquid phase of a particular soil, the modification did not respond to the vapour phase of the soil moisture. Therefore, in the dry range (i.e. in the vapour phase in which the flow was entirely as vapour), either resistance models or a Fickian equation should be used. Although the effect of salinity on the measured rates was significant, the model erroneously calculated the same rates for both saline and non-saline conditions. The effect of soil texture can easily be accounted by defining appropriate matric potential water content psi(m)(theta) and soil relative humidity water content h(s)(theta) relationships. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hyp.6553
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectdrying soilen_US
dc.subjectsalinityen_US
dc.subjectwater contenten_US
dc.subjectsoil relative humidityen_US
dc.subjectvapour pressureen_US
dc.subjectSimple Sensorsen_US
dc.subjectLiquid-Phaseen_US
dc.subjectWater-Tableen_US
dc.subjectMoistureen_US
dc.subjectSurfaceen_US
dc.subjectSalinityen_US
dc.subjectAtmosphereen_US
dc.subjectResistanceen_US
dc.subjectTransitionen_US
dc.subjectRadiationen_US
dc.titleModification of the Penman method for computing bare soil evaporationen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.ispartofHydrological Processesen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarımsal Yapılar ve Sulama Bölümüen_US
dc.identifier.volume21en_US
dc.identifier.issue26en_US
dc.identifier.startpage3627en_US
dc.identifier.endpage3634en_US
dc.institutionauthorKonukçu, Fatih
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.authorscopusid7801416172
dc.authorwosidkonukcu, fatih/ABA-9004-2020
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000252167600008en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-37549063976en_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster