(First edition: 1998, this reprint: 2004). This publication presents an updated procedure for calculating reference and crop evapotranspiration from meteorological data and crop coefficients. The procedure, first presented in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, Crop water requirements, in 1977, allows estimation of the amount of water used by a crop, taking into account the effect of the climate and the crop characteristics. The publication incorporates advances in research and more accurate procedures for determining crop water use as recommended by a panel of high-level experts organised by FAO in May 1990. The first part of the guidelines includes procedures for determining reference crop evapotranspiration according to the FAO Penman-Monteith method. These are followed by updated procedures for estimating the evapotranspiration of different crops for different growth stages and ecological conditions.

Crop evapotranspiration : guidelines for computing crop water requirements

A conceptual, continuous time model called SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) was developed to assist water resource managers in assessing the impact of management on water supplies and nonpoint source pollution in watersheds and large river basins. The model is currently being utilized in several large area projects by EPA, NOAA, NRCS and others to estimate the off-site impacts of climate and management on water use, nonpoint source loadings, and pesticide contamination. Model development, operation, limitations, and assumptions are discussed and components of the model are described. In Part II, a GIS input/output interface is presented along with model validation on three basins within the Upper Trinity basin in Texas.

Large Area Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment Part i: Model Development

Boundary Layer Climates.

Integrating conceptually similar models of the growth of marine and terrestrial primary producers yielded an estimated global net primary production (NPP) of 104.9 petagrams of carbon per year, with roughly equal contributions from land and oceans. Approaches based on satellite indices of absorbed solar radiation indicate marked heterogeneity in NPP for both land and oceans, reflecting the influence of physical and ecological processes. The spatial and temporal distributions of ocean NPP are consistent with primary limitation by light, nutrients, and temperature. On land, water limitation imposes additional constraints. On land and ocean, progressive changes in NPP can result in altered carbon storage, although contrasts in mechanisms of carbon storage and rates of organic matter turnover result in a range of relations between carbon storage and changes in NPP.

/pdf/primary-production-of-the-biosphere-integrating-terrestrial-4t7yz6focw.pdf

Primary Production of the Biosphere: Integrating Terrestrial and Oceanic Components

When the atmospheric turbulent flux of a minor constituent such as CO2 (or of water vapour as a special case) is measured by either the eddy covariance or the mean gradient technique, account may need to be taken of variations of the constituent's density due to the presence of a flux of heat and/or water vapour. In this paper the basic relationships are discussed in the context of vertical transfer in the lower atmosphere, and the required corrections to the measured flux are derived.

If the measurement involves sensing of the fluctuations or mean gradient of the constituent's mixing ratio relative to the dry air component, then no correction is required; while with sensing of the constituent's specific mass content relative to the total moist air, a correction arising from the water vapour flux only is required. Correspondingly, if in mean gradient measurements the constituent's density is measured in air from different heights which has been pre-dried and brought to a common temperature, then again no correction is required; while if the original (moist) air itself is brought to a common temperature, then only a correction arising from the water vapour flux is required.

If the constituent's density fluctuations or mean gradients are measured directly in the air in situ, then corrections arising from both heat and water vapour fluxes are required.

These corrections will often be very important. That due to the heat flux is about five times as great as that due to an equal latent heat (water vapour) flux. In CO2 flux measurements the magnitude of the correction will commonly exceed that of the flux itself. The correction to measurements of water vapour flux will often be only a few per cent but will sometimes exceed 10 per cent.

Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer

The Radiation Regime and Architecture of Plant Stands.

The Quest for Balance in Crop Modeling

A Linke-Feussner radiometer was used to measure the radiative temperature of natural surfaces, with small errors caused by the divergence of radiative flux and by its angular variation. On typical cloudless summer days, the maximum temperature of tall crops and of open water was close to maximum air temperature; a bare soil surface exceeded air temperature by 20°C; short grass was the coldest surface at night. A linear variation of net (total) radiation with net short-wave radiation was established for several tall crops, and the increase in long-wave loss per unit increase of net radiation (heating coefficient) was 0·08. Daily totals of net radiation as a percentage of solar radiation income were: 37 per cent (bare soil), 41 per cent (short grass), 46 per cent (tall crop), and 53 per cent (water). 
 
 
 
When the aerodynamic character of a crop is known, the effective resistance of the stomata to water-vapour diffusion can be related theoretically to the difference between surface and air temperature. For rough vegetation, estimated stomatal resistance is 0·4 to 0·8 sec cm−1 and the estimated heating coefficient is almost independent of wind speed at about 0·1.

The radiation balance of bare soil and vegetation - radiative temperature in the heat balance of natural surfaces

Figures for maximum crop growth rates, reviewed by Gifford (1974), suggest that the productivity of C3 and C4 species is almost indistinguishable. However, close inspection of these figures at source and correspondence with several authors revealed a number of errors. When all unreliable figures were discarded, the maximum growth rate for C3 stands fell in the range 34–39 g m−2 d−1 compared with 50–54 g m−2 d−1 for C4 stands. Maximum growth rates averaged over the whole growing season showed a similar difference: 13 g m−2 d−1 for C3 and 22 g m−2 d−1 for C4. These figures correspond to photosynthetic efficiencies of approximately 1·4 and 2·0%.

John L. Monteith

Papers

The Radiation Regime and Architecture of Plant Stands.

The Quest for Balance in Crop Modeling

The radiation balance of bare soil and vegetation - radiative temperature in the heat balance of natural surfaces

Reassessment of Maximum Growth Rates for C3 and C4 Crops

Validity of the correlation between intercepted radiation and biomass