Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 616

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A COMPARISON OF SIX POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION METHODS FOR REGIONAL USE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

Lu, Jianbiao, Sun, Ge, McNulty, Steven G., Amatya, Devendra M.·2005·Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is an important index of hydrologic budgets at different spatial scales and is a critical variable for understanding regional biological processes. It is often an important variable in estimating actual evapotranspiration (AET) in rainfall-runoff and ecosystem modeling. However, PET is defined in different ways in the literature and quantitative estimation of PET with existing mathematical formulas produces inconsistent results. The objectives of this study are to contrast six commonly used PET methods and quantify the long term annual PET across a physiographic gradient of 36 forested watersheds in the southeastern United States. Three temperature based (Thornthwaite, Hamon, and Hargreaves-Samani) and three radiation based (Turc, Makkink, and Priestley-Taylor) PET methods are compared. Long term water balances (precipitation, streamflow, and AET) for 36 forest dominated watersheds from 0.25 to 8213 km2 in size were estimated using associated hydrometeorological and land use databases. The study found that PET values calculated from the six methods were highly correlated (Pearson Correlation Coefficient 0.85 to 1.00). Multivariate statistical tests, however, showed that PET values from different methods were significantly different from each other. Greater differences were found among the temperature based PET methods than radiation based PET methods. In general, the Priestley-Taylor, Turc, and Hamon methods performed better than the other PET methods. Based on the criteria of availability of input data and correlations with AET values, the Priestley-Taylor, Turc, and Hamon methods are recommended for regional applications in the southeastern United States.

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 · 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03759.x

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 616

Metadata

Authors
Lu, J., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., & Amatya, D. M.
Venue
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
621-633
ISSN
  • 1093-474X (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-1688
OpenAlex
W2160275807
Cited by
616
References
16
FWCI
6.58
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: A COMPARISON OF SIX POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION METHODS FOR REGIONAL USE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03759.x
The paper
Lu, J., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., & Amatya, D. M. (2005). A COMPARISON OF SIX POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION METHODS FOR REGIONAL USE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03759.x

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.