Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 529

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimating Evapotranspiration using Artificial Neural Network

Kumar, M., Raghuwanshi, N. S., Singh, R., Wallender, W. W., Pruitt, W. O.·2002·Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
DOI 10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2002)128:4(224

Abstract

This study investigates the utility of artificial neural networks (ANNs) for estimation of daily grass reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) and compares the performance of ANNs with the conventional method (Penman–Monteith) used to estimate ETo. Several issues associated with the use of ANNs are examined, including different learning methods, number of processing elements in the hidden layer(s), and the number of hidden layers. Three learning methods, namely, the standard back-propagation with learning rates of 0.2 and 0.8, and backpropagation with momentum were considered. The best ANN architecture for estimation of daily ETo was obtained for two different data sets (Sets 1 and 2) for Davis, Calif. Using data of Set 1, the networks were trained with daily climatic data (solar radiation, maximum and minimum temperature, maximum and minimum relative humidity, and wind speed) as input and the Penman–Monteith (PM) estimated ETo as output. The best ANN architecture was selected on the basis of weighted standard error of estimate (WSEE) and minimal ANN architecture. The ANN architecture of 6-7-1, (six, seven, and one neuron(s) in the input, hidden, and output layers, respectively) gave the minimum WSEE (less than 0.3 mm/day) for all learning methods. This value was lower than the WSEE (0.74 mm/day) between the PM method and lysimeter measured ETo as reported by Jensen et al. in 1990. Similarly, ANNs were trained, validated, and tested using the lysimeter measured ETo and corresponding climatic data (Set 2). Again, all learning methods gave less WSEE (less than 0.60 mm/day) as compared to the PM method (0.97 mm/day). Based on these results, it can be concluded that the ANN can predict ETo better than the conventional method (PM) for Davis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2002)128:4(224)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 529

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, M., Raghuwanshi, N. S., Singh, R., Wallender, W. W., & Pruitt, W. O.
Venue
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Published
2002-08
Volume
128
Issue
4
Pages
224-233
ISSN
  • 0733-9437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-4774
DOI
10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2002)128:4(224
OpenAlex
W1978128908
Cited by
529
References
0
FWCI
6.22
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: Estimating Evapotranspiration using Artificial Neural Network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2002)128:4(224
The paper
Kumar, M., Raghuwanshi, N. S., Singh, R., Wallender, W. W., & Pruitt, W. O. (2002). Estimating Evapotranspiration using Artificial Neural Network. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2002)128%3A4(224

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.