The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale
Abstract
It is now well established that forested catchments have higher evapotranspiration than grassed catchments. Thus land use management and rehabilitation strategies will have an impact on catchment water balance and hence water yield and groundwater recharge. The key controls on evapotranspiration are rainfall interception, net radiation, advection, turbulent transport, leaf area, and plant‐available water capacity. The relative importance of these factors depends on climate, soil, and vegetation conditions. Results from over 250 catchments worldwide show that for a given forest cover, there is a good relationship between long‐term average evapotranspiration and rainfall. From these observations and on the basis of previous theoretical work a simple two‐parameter model was developed that relates mean annual evapotranspiration to rainfall, potential evapotranspiration, and plant‐available water capacity. The mean absolute error between modeled and measured evapotranspiration was 42 mm or 6.0%; the least squares line through the origin had as lope of 1.00 and a correlation coefficient of 0.96. The model showed potential for a variety of applications including water yield modeling and recharge estimation. The model is a practical tool that can be readily used for assessing the long‐term average effect of vegetation changes on catchment evapotranspiration and is scientifically justifiable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bosch, J. M., & Hewlett, J. D. (1982) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(82)90117-2 · Cited by 2,567
Cited by
MSWEP V2 Global 3-Hourly 0.1° Precipitation: Methodology and Quantitative Assessment
Beck, H. E., Wood, E. F., Pan, M., Fisher, C. K., Miralles, D. G., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McVicar, T. R., & Adler, R. F. (2019) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-17-0138.1 · Cited by 1,411
Trading Water for Carbon with Biological Carbon Sequestration
Jackson, R. B., Jobbágy, E. G., Avissar, R., Roy, S. B., Barrett, D. J., Cook, C. W., Farley, K. A., le Maitre, D. C., McCarl, B. A., & Murray, B. C. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1119282 · Cited by 1,345
Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy
Farley, K. A., Jobbágy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2005) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01011.x · Cited by 1,122
The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies
(2017) · doi:10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017 · Cited by 1,037
Fletcher, T. D., Andrieu, H., & Hamel, P. (2013) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.09.001 · Cited by 1,015
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, L., Dawes, W. R., & Walker, G. R.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 701-708
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1976095361
- Cited by
- 2,571
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 42.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2000wr900325
- The paper
- Zhang, L., Dawes, W. R., & Walker, G. R. (2001). Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000wr900325
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.