List of meteorological stations (latitude,
1. Introduction
The estimation of evapotranspiration is a typical task in several disciplines of geosciences and engineering, including hydrology, meteorology, climatology, ecology and agricultural engineering. According to the specific area of interest, we distinguish between three different aspects of evapotranspiration, i.e. actual, potential and reference crop. In particular, the actual evapotranspiration refers to the quantity of water that is actually removed from a surface due to the combined processes of evaporation and transpiration. At the global scale, it is estimated that about 60% of precipitation reaching the Earth’s terrain returns to the atmosphere by means of water losses due to evapotranspiration [1]. Obviously this percentage is not constant but exhibits significant variability both in space and time. In particular, in semiarid basins the annual percentage of evapotranspiration losses may be 7080% of precipitation, while in cold hydroclimates this percentage is lower that 30%.
The actual evapotranspiration is one of the most difficult processes to measure in the field, except for experimental, smallscale areas, for which lysimeter observations can be assumed representative. For the spatial scale of practical applications (e.g., river basin), there is a growing interest on remote sensing technologies, which attempt to estimate actual evapotranspiration at regional scales, by combining ground measurements with satellitederived data [2]. Otherwise, the only reliable method is based on the calculation of the water balance of the basin. Apparently, this approach is valid only when actual evapotranspiration is the single unknown component of the water balance. In addition, it can be implemented only for large time scales (annual and overannual), for which storage regulation effects can be neglected. Alternatively, the spatiotemporal representation of the water balance can be evaluated through hydrological models. The latter simulate the main hydrological mechanisms of the river basin, using areal rainfall and potential evapotranspiration as input data. In order to obtain the actual evapotranspiration, which is output of the model, it is therefore essential to estimate the potential evapotranspiration across the basin.
Potential, as well as and crop reference evapotranspiration, are two key concepts, for which different definitions have been proposed, often leading to confusing interpretations [3]. The term “potential evapotranspiration”, introduced by Thornthwaite [4], generally refers to the maximum amount of water that could evaporate and transpire from a large and uniformly vegetated landscape, without restrictions other than the atmospheric demand [5, 6]. On the other hand, the reference crop evapotranspiration (or reference evapotranspiration) is strictly defined as the evapotranspiration rate from a reference surface, not short of water, of a hypothetical grass crop with a height of 0.12 m, a fixed surface resistance of 70 s/m and an albedo of 0.23. This description closely resembles a surface of green, wellwatered grass of uniform height, actively growing and completely shading the ground [7].
Potential and reference evapotranspiration can be theoretically retrieved on the basis of mass transfer and energy balance approaches. In this respect, a wide number of methods and models have been developed, of different levels of complexity. Lu
The subsequently referred to as the PenmanMonteith method is by far the most recognized among all evapotranspiration models, as reported in numerous investigations worldwide. For instance, this approach provided the optimal estimates on the daily and monthly scales and was the most consistent across all locations [11]. It was also indicated that the PenmanMonteith method exhibited excellent performance in both arid and humid climates [12] and was the most accurate in estimating the water needs of turfgrass [13]. Its suitability was confirmed even when relative humidity and wind velocity data are missing [14].
The PenmanMonteith method requires complex calculations and it is data demanding. In this respect, a number of radically simplified methods have been proposed that require fewer meteorological variables. The latter can be divided into two categories: radiationbased approaches, which account for both the variability of solar radiation and temperature [15, 16, 17, 18], and elementary empirical methods that use as single meteorological input temperature [4, 19, 20]. A comprehensive review of them is provided in [21] and [22]. Yet, the predictive capacity of most of these models remains questionable, since they are based on empirical assumptions that do not ensure consistency with the physics of the natural phenomenon. Moreover, their applicability is usually restricted to specific geographical locations and climatic regimes, because their parameters are derived from experiments employed at the local scale.
Except for temperature, long records of input time series for the PenmanMonteith method are rarely available, especially in older meteorological stations. Thus, a typical problem is the estimation of evapotranspiration, in case of missing meteorological data. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) emphatically suggests employing the PenmanMonteith method even under limited data availability. In this context, it provides a number of procedures for dealing with missing information, while it discourages the use of empirical approaches [7]. Yet, most of the proposed procedures still require meteorological data that are barely accessible, or require arbitrary assumptions with regard to the climatic regime of the study area.
Here we propose an alternative parametric approach, which is founded on a simplified parsimonious expression of the PenmanMonteith formula. The method can be assigned to radiationbased approaches, yet its key difference is the use of free variables (i.e. parameters) instead of constants, which are fitted to local climatic conditions. The method is parsimonious both in terms of meteorological data requirements (temperature) and with regard to the number of parameters (one to three).
For the identification of parameters, it is essential to have reference time series of satisfactory accuracy, preferably estimated through the PenmanMonteith method. Under this premise, the model parameters can be obtained through calibration, thus by minimizing the departures between the modelled evaporation data and the reference data. This task was applied in 37 meteorological stations that are maintained by the National Meteorological Service of Greece. As will be shown, the proposed method is clearly superior to commonlyused empirical approaches. Moreover, by mapping the parameter values over the entire Greek territory, using typical interpolation tools, we provide a flexible framework for the direct and reliable estimation of evapotranspiration anywhere in Greece.
The article is organized as follows: In section 2, we review the PenmanMonteith method and its simplifications, which estimate evapotranspiration on the basis of temperature and radiation data. In section 3 we present the new parametric model, which compromises the requirements for parsimony and consistency. In section 4, we calibrate the model at the point scale, using historical meteorological data, and evaluate it against other empirical approaches. In addition, we investigate the geographical distribution of its parameters over Greece. Finally, in section 5 we summarize the outcomes of our research and discuss next research steps.
2. The PenmanMonteith method and its simplifications
2.1. The Penman method and its physical background
Evaporation can be viewed both as energy (heat) exchange and an aerodynamic process. According to the energy balance approach, the net radiation at the Earth’s surface (
where
From the aerodynamic viewpoint, evaporation is a mass diffusion process. In this context, the rate of evaporation is related to the difference in the water vapor content of the air at two levels above the evaporating surface and a function of the wind speed
Penman [9] combined the energy balance with the mass transfer approaches, thus allowing the use of temperature, humidity and wind speed measurements at a single level. His classical formula for computing evaporation from an open water surface is written as:
where
Summarizing, the Penman equation requires records of solar radiation (alternatively, sunshine duration or cloud cover), temperature, relative humidity and wind speed, as well as a number of parameters accounting for surface characteristics (latitude, Julian day index, albedo, elevation, etc.).
2.2. The PenmanMonteith method
Penman’s method was extended to cropped surfaces, by accounting for various resistance factors, aerodynamic and surface. As mentioned in the introduction, Monteith [10] introduced the concept of the socalled “bulk” surface resistance that describes the resistance of vapor flow through the transpiring crop and evaporating soil surface [7]. This depends on multiple factors, such as the solar radiation, the vapor pressure deficit, the temperature of leafs, the water status of the canopy, the height of vegetation, etc. Combining the two resistance components, the following generalized expression of the Penman equation is obtained, referred to as Penman–Monteith formula:
where:
In the above relationship,
In this context, FAO proposed the application of the Penman–Monteith method for the hypothetical reference crop, thus introducing the concept of reference evapotranspiration. With standardized height for wind speed, temperature and humidity measurements at 2.0 m and the crop height of 0.12 m, the aerodynamic and surface resistances become
2.3. Radiationbased approaches
The complexity of the Penman–Monteith method stimulated many researchers to seek for alternative, simplified expressions, based on limited and easily accessible data. Given that the main sources of variability in evapotranspiration are temperature and solar radiation, the two variables are introduced in a number of such models, typically referred as radiationbased. We note that the classification to “radiationbased” instead of the more complete “radiationtemperaturebased” is made for highlighting the difference with even simpler approaches that use temperature as single input variable.
A wellknown simplification is the Priestley–Taylor formula [17], which is expressed in terms of equivalent depth (mm/d):
where
Despite its simplifications, the Priestley–Taylor method is still physicallybased, as opposed to most of radiationbased approaches that are rather empirical. In addition, many of them use either total solar radiation or even extraterrestrial radiation, instead of net radiation data. For instance, Jensen & Haise [15], based on evapotranspiration measurements from irrigated areas across the United States, proposed the following expression:
This equation only uses average daily temperature,
Another widely used approach is the Hargreaves model [18] that estimates the reference evapotranspiration at the monthly scale by:
where
Many studies proved the superiority of radiationbased approaches against temperaturebased ones. For instance, Lu
where
2.4. Temperaturebased approaches
The most elementary approaches only use temperature data as input, while the radiation term is indirectly accounted for, by means of empirical or semiempirical expressions. The most recognized method of this category is the Thornthwaite formula [4]:
where
Another widely known temperaturebased method is the Blaney & Criddle formula [19]:
where
Linacre [20] has also developed simplified formulas to estimate open water evaporation and reference evapotranspiration on the basis of temperature. For the calculation of evaporation, the Linacre formula is:
where
We notify that all the above approaches are only valid for monthly or daily scales, which are sufficient for most of engineering applications. For shorter time scales (e.g. hourly), the estimation of reference evapotranspiration requires additional astronomical calculations as well as finelyresolved meteorological data. Empirical formulas for such time scales are also available in the literature, e.g. in [29].
3. Development of parsimonious parametric formulas for evapotranspiration modelling
3.1. The need for a parametric model
A typical shortcoming of most of simplified approaches (i.e. empirical models that use solar radiation and temperature data) for evapotranspiration modeling is their poor predictive capacity against the entire range of climatic regimes and locations. For, these models are built and validated in specific conditions. Thus, while they work well in the areas and over the periods for which they have been developed, they provide inaccurate results when they are applied to other climatic areas, without reevaluating the constants involved in the empirical formulas [30]. Hence, the key idea behind the development of a parametric model is the replacement of some of the constants that are used in such formulas by free parameters, which are regionallyvarying. The optimal values of parameters can be obtained through calibration, i.e. by fitting model outputs to “reference” evapotranspiration time series. Nowadays, calibration is a rather straightforward task, thanks to the development of powerful global optimization techniques, such as evolutionary algorithms. The reference data can be provided either directly (e.g. through remote sensing) or estimated by wellestablished methods (preferably the PenmanMonteith model). Optimization is carried out against a goodnessoffit criterion, which aggregates the departures between the simulated and reference data (e.g. coefficient of efficiency).
In this context, a parametric expression can be used as a generalized regression formula, for infilling and extrapolating evapotranspiration records. This is of high importance, since in many conventional meteorological stations, the temperature records usually overlap the records of the rest of variables that are required by the PenmanMonteith method. The use of a parametric model, with parameters calibrated on the basis of reliable evapotranspiration data, is obviously preferable to empirical models, which cannot account for the whole available meteorological information, i.e. the past observations of humidity, solar radiation and wind velocity.
3.2. Ensuring parsimony and consistency
The need for parsimonious models is essential in all aspects of water engineering and management [31]. Generally, the concept of parsimony refers to both the model structure, which should be as simple as possible, and the input data, which should be as fewer as possible and easily available. Yet, as indicated in the Section 2, many of the empirical models for evapotranspiration estimations, although they are data parsimonious, fail to provide realistic results (see also Section 4 below), since they do not account for important aspects of the natural phenomenon. Therefore, before building the model it is crucial to ensure that simplicity will not be in contrast with consistency. This requires: (a) the choice of the most important explanatory variables in the equations, and (b) the determination of the number of parameters, which should be identified through calibration.
It is wellknown that the variability of evapotranspiration is mainly explained by the variability of solar radiation and temperature. Yet, instead of measured solar radiation, which is rarely available, and following the practice of most of the empirical methods, we decided to use extraterrestrial radiation, together with temperature, as explanatory variables in the new formula. In order to justify this option, we examined several combinations of variables, using data from a number of meteorological stations in Greece. In the example of Figure 1 are illustrated the scatter plots of mean monthly temperature
Next, in order to determine the essential number of parameters, we took advantage of the associated experience with conceptual hydrological models. For, in lumped rainfallrunoff models, it is argued that no more than five to six parameters are adequate to describe the variability of streamflow [32]. Since the variability of monthly evapotranspiration is clearly less than of runoff, in the proposed model we restricted the maximum number of parameters to three. This number is reasonable, also because three are the missing meteorological variables. Within the case study, we also examine even more parsimonious formulations, using two or even one parameter.
3.3. Model formulation and justification
By dividing both the numerator and the denominator by
In the above expression, the numerator is the sum of a term related to solar radiation and a term related to the rest of meteorological variables, while the denominator is function of temperature. Koutsoyiannis & Xanthopoulos [33] proposed a parametric simplification of the PenmanMonteith formula, where the numerator is approximated by a linear function of extraterrestrial solar radiation,
The formula contains three parameters, i.e.
4. Application of the parametric formula over Greece
4.1. Meteorological data and computational tools
We used monthly meteorological data from 37 stations welldistributed over Greece, run by the National Meteorological Service of Greece. The locations of the stations are shown in Figure 3 and their characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Most of stations are close to the sea. Their latitudes range from 35.0^{o} to 41.5^{o}, while their elevations range from 2 to 663 m. The original data include mean temperature, relative humidity, sunshine percent (i.e. ratio of actual sunshine duration to maximum potential daylight hours per month) and wind velocity records. These records cover the period 19681989 with very few missing values, which have not been considered in calculations. At all study locations, the monthly potential evapotranspiration was calculated with the PenmanMonteith formula, assumed as reference model for the evaluation of the examined methodologies. The mean annual potential evapotranspiration values, shown in Table 2, range from 912 mm (Florina station, North Greece, altitude 662 m) to 1628 mm (Ierapetra station, Crete Island, South Greece).
The handling of the time series and the related calculations were carried out using the Hydrognomon software, a powerful tool for the processing and management of hydrometeorological data [34]. The software is openaccess and freely available at http://www.hydrognomon.org/.









1  Agrinio  38.37  46  20  Larisa  39.39  74  
2  Alexandroupoli  40.51  4  21  Limnos  39.54  17  
3  Argostoli  38.11  2  22  Methoni  36.50  34  
4  Arta  39.10  38  23  Milos  36.41  183  
5  Chalkida  38.28  6  24  Mytiline  39.30  5  
6  Chania  35.30  63  25  Naxos  37.60  9  
7  Chios  38.20  4  26  Orestiada  41.50  48  
8  Florina  40.47  662  27  Patra  38.15  3  
9  Hellinico  37.54  15  28  Rhodes  36.24  37  
10  Heracleio  35.20  39  29  Serres  41.40  35  
11  Ierapetra  35.00  14  30  Siteia  35.12  28  
12  Ioannina  39.42  484  31  Skyros  38.54  5  
13  Kalamata  37.40  8  32  Thera  36.25  208  
14  Kavala  40.54  63  33  Thessaloniki  40.31  5  
15  Kerkyra  39.37  2  34  Trikala  39.33  116  
16  Korinthos  38.20  15  35  Tripoli  37.32  663  
17  Kozani  40.18  626  36  Volos  39.23  7  
18  Kymi  38.38  221  37  Zakynthos  37.47  8  
19  Kythira  36.10  167 
4.2. Model calibration and validation
The entire sample was split into two control periods, 19681983 (calibration) and 19841989 (validation). At each station, the three parameters of eq. (14) were calibrated against the reference potential evapotranspiration time series. This task was automatically employed via a least square optimization technique, embedded in the evapotranspiration module of Hydrognomon.
The optimized values of



1  1108.4  0.989  0.975  20  1039.0  0.987  0.980  
2  1164.0  0.971  0.970  21  1345.5  0.964  0.971  
3  1277.9  0.982  0.980  22  1286.4  0.962  0.970  
4  1195.0  0.981  0.871  23  1461.9  0.972  0.980  
5  1274.5  0.950  0.953  24  1458.6  0.988  0.970  
6  1296.0  0.973  0.963  25  1459.0  0.975  0.980  
7  1412.9  0.919  0.953  26  1028.4  0.981  0.970  
8  911.7  0.967  0.960  27  1205.4  0.987  0.960  
9  1476.6  0.983  0.980  28  1551.9  0.972  0.970  
10  1521.8  0.980  0.980  29  997.8  0.982  0.970  
11  1628.4  0.962  0.940  30  1477.9  0.985  0.990  
12  939.5  0.987  0.980  31  1297.9  0.926  0.910  
13  1221.0  0.983  0.980  32  1437.1  0.971  0.940  
14  962.4  0.983  0.980  33  1157.8  0.983  0.980  
15  1089.5  0.989  0.990  34  1118.7  0.973  0.970  
16  1483.1  0.957  0.820  35  1133.5  0.942  0.950  
17  979.7  0.982  0.980  36  1240.6  0.981  0.910  
18  1307.3  0.975  0.910  37  1370.4  0.974  0.980  
19  1508.2  0.957  0.970 
For both calibration and validation, we used as performance measure the coefficient of efficiency, given by:
where
The coefficients of efficiency for all stations, during the two control periods are given in Table 2. For all stations the model fitting is very satisfactory, since the CE values are very high. Specifically, the average CE values of the 37 stations are 97.2% during calibration and 95.9% during validation, while their minimum values are 91.9 and 82.0%, respectively.
4.3. Comparison with other empirical methods
At all stations, we compared the performance of the parametric method (in terms of coefficients of efficiency) with two radiationbased approaches, i.e. the McGuiness model (eq. 7), and the generalized eq. (9), proposed by Oudin





Cal.  Val.  Cal.  Val.  Cal.  Val. 

37  30  0  2  5  2 

0  6  8  9  5  9 

0  1  12  19  12  15 

0  0  15  6  12  7 

0  0  2  1  3  4 
We also compared the performance of the new parametric approach against the most widely used methods in Greece, i.e. Thornthwaite, BlaneyCriddle, and Hargreaves. We remind that the first two are temperaturebased, while the latter also uses extraterrestrial radiation and monthly average minimum and maximum temperature as inputs. The calculations of monthly potential evapotranspiration, using the Hydrognomon software, were made for ten representative stations, with different climatic characteristics. For each station Table 4 gives the coefficient of efficiency and the bias, i.e. the relative difference of the monthly average against the average of the PenmanMonteith method (both refer to the entire control period 19681988). The proposed formula is substantially more accurate, while all other commonly used approaches do not provide satisfactory results across all locations. The suitability of each method depends on local conditions. Thus, at each location, one method may be satisfactorily accurate, while another method may result to unacceptably large errors. In general, the Thornthwaite formula underestimates potential evapotranspiration by 30%, while the BlaneyCriddle method overestimates it by 30%. In stations that are far from the sea (Florina, Larisa), the deviation exceeds 50%. The Hargreaves method, although it uses additional inputs, totally fails to predict the potential evapotranspiration at some stations, resulting even in negative values of CE. On the other hand, the parametric method is impressively accurate, as indicated by both the CE values and the practically zero bias.















Alexandroupoli  0.747  0.287  0.645  0.321  0.935  0.055  0.973  0.006 
Chios  0.440  0.384  0.725  0.153  0.568  0.274  0.898  0.006 
Florina  0.883  0.200  0.339  0.557  0.842  0.200  0.966  0.002 
Heracleio  0.068  0.402  0.807  0.113  0.170  0.341  0.981  0.001 
Kythira  0.094  0.421  0.815  0.087  0.114  0.446  0.961  0.011 
Larisa  0.920  0.167  0.413  0.504  0.843  0.227  0.986  0.004 
Milos  0.180  0.406  0.806  0.116  0.105  0.398  0.974  0.009 
Patra  0.686  0.258  0.381  0.379  0.942  0.046  0.987  0.009 
Thessaloniki  0.816  0.250  0.614  0.363  0.937  0.003  0.983  0.002 
Tripoli  0.711  0.303  0.651  0.325  0.957  0.088  0.948  0.008 
Average  0.555  0.308  0.620  0.292  0.619  0.095  0.966  0.000 
4.4. Investigation of alternative parameterizations
In order to provide a further parsimonious expression, we investigated two alternative parameterizations by simplifying eq. (14). In the first approach, we omitted parameter
The two parameters of eq. (16) were calibrated using as reference data the PenmanMonteith estimations. Next, we provided a singleparameter expression, in which we applied the spatially average value of
The two models (16) and (17) were evaluated on the basis of CE, for the entire control period (results not shown). Compared to the full expression (14), the reduction of CE is negligible when parameter













5.486  1.487  6.362  0.913  6.257  0.735 

0.1973  0.4330  –  –  –  – 

0.0241  0.0024  0.0234  0.0020  –  – 
4.5. Spatial variability of model parameters
For the simplified model (17), we investigated the spatial variability of its single parameter
Next, we visualized the variation of the parameter over the Greek territory, using spatial integration procedures that are embedded in the ESRI ArcGIS toolbox. After preliminary investigations, we selected the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) method to interpolate between the known point values at the 37 meteorological stations, using a cell dimension of 0.5 km. The IDW method estimates the parameter values at the grid scale as the weighted sum of the point values, where the weights are decreasing functions of the distance between the centroid of each cell from the corresponding station. Since the parameter variability is not correlated with elevation, it was not necessary to employ more complex integration methods, such as cokriging, which also account for the influence of altitude.
The mapping of parameter
5. Synopsis and discussion
A parametric, radiationbased model for the estimation of potential evapotranspiration has been developed, which is parsimonious both in terms of data requirements and number of parameters. Its mathematical expression originates from consecutive simplifications of the PenmanMonteith formula, thus being physicallyconsistent. In its full form, the model requires three parameters to be calibrated. Yet, simpler formulations, with either one or two parameters, were also examined, without significant degradation of the model performance.
The model parameters were optimized on the basis of monthly evapotranspiration data, estimated with the PenmanMonteith method at 37 meteorological stations in Greece, using historical meteorological data for a 20year period (19681988). The model exhibits excellent fitting to all locations. Its appropriateness is further revealed through extensive comparisons with other empirical approaches, i.e. two radiationbased methods and three temperaturebased ones. In particular, common temperaturebased methods that have been widely used in Greece provide rather disappointing results, while the new parametric model retains a systematically high predictive capacity across all study locations. This is the great advantage of parametric approaches against empirical ones, since calibration allows the coefficients that are involved in the mathematical formulas to be fitted to local climatic conditions.
The key model parameter was spatially interpolated throughout Greek territory, using a typical method in a GIS environment. The geographical distribution of the parameter exhibits a systematic increase from SE to NW, which is explained by the increase of sunshine duration and wind velocity as we move from the continental to insular Greece. Similar patterns were not found for the rest of model parameters. The practical value of this analysis is important, since it allows for establishing a specific formula for the estimation of potential evapotranspiration at any point. Thus, a minimalistic model of high accuracy is now available everywhere in Greece, which requires monthly temperature data as the only meteorological input. The other inputs are the monthly extraterrestrial radiation, which is function of latitude and time of the year, and a map of the parameter distribution.
To improve the model, it is essential to implement additional investigations, using a denser network of meteorological stations (especially stations in mountainous areas). In particular, it is necessary to examine the sensitivity of the various hydrometeorological variables that are involved in the evapotranspiration process, and provide alternative formulations for various combinations of missing meteorological data.
References
 1.
Seckler D, Amarasinghe U, Molden D, de Silva R, Barker R. World Water Demand and Supply, 19902025: Scenarios and Issues. Research Report 19. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka; 1998.  2.
Tsouni A, Contoes C, Koutsoyiannis D, Elias P, Mamassis N. Estimation of actual evapotranspiration by remote sensing: Application in Thessaly Plain, Greece. Sensors 2008; 8(6): 3586–3600.  3.
Lhomme JP. Towards a rational definition of potential evaporation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1997; 1: 257264.  4.
Thornthwaite CW. An approach towards a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review 1948; 38: 5594.  5.
Brutsaert W. Evaporation into the Atmosphere: Theory, History, and Applications, Springer; 1982.  6.
Lu J, Sun G, McNulty SG, Amatya DM. A comparison of six potential comparison evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the Southeastern United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2005; 41: 621–633.  7.
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Rome; 1998.  8.
Fisher JB, Whittaker RJ, Malhi Y. ET come home: Potential evapotranspiration in geographical ecology. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2011; 20(1): 1–18.  9.
Penman HL. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 1948; 193: 120–145.  10.
Monteith JL. Evaporation and the environment: The state and movement of water in living organism. XIXth Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Swansea; 1965.  11.
Allen RG, Jensen ME, Wright JL, Burman RD. Operational estimates of reference evapotranspiration. Agronomy Journal 1989; 81: 650–662.  12.
Jensen ME, Burman RD, Allen RG. Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirement. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, 70; 1990.  13.
Mecham BQ. Scheduling turfgrass irrigation by various ET equations. Evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Irrigation International Conference. 3–6 November, San Antonio; 1996.  14.
Sentelhas PC, Gillespie TJ, Santos EA. Evaluation of FAO PenmanMonteith and alternative methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration with missing data in Southern Ontario, Canada. Agricultural Water Management 2010; 97(5): 635–644.  15.
Jensen M, Haise H. Estimating evapotranspiration from solar radiation. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division. Proceedings of the ASCE 1963; 89(1R4): 15–41.  16.
McGuinness JL, Bordne EF. A comparison of lysimeterderived potential evapotranspiration with computed values. Technical Bulletin 1452. Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; 1972.  17.
Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ. On the assessment of surface heat fluxes and evaporation using largescale parameters. Monthly Weather Review 1972; 100: 81–92.  18.
Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA. Reference crop evaporation from temperature. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 1985; 1(2) 96–99.  19.
Blaney HF, Criddle WD. Determining water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological irrigation data. Technical Paper No. 96. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC; 1950.  20.
Linacre ET. A simple formula for estimating evaporation rates in various climates, using temperature data alone. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 1977; 18: 409–424.  21.
Xu CY, Singh VP. Evaluation and generalization of radiationbased methods for calculating evaporation. Hydrological Processes 2000; 14: 339–349.  22.
Xu CY, Singh VP. Evaluation and generalization of temperaturebased methods for calculating evaporation. Hydrological Processes 2001; 15: 305–319.  23.
Mamassis N, Efstratiadis A, Apostolidou E. Topographyadjusted solar radiation indices and their importance in hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Journal 2012; 57(4): 756–775.  24.
Shuttleworth WJ. Evaporation. In: Maidment DR. (ed.) Handbook of Hydrology, McGrawHill, New York; 1993: Ch. 4.  25.
Oudin L, Hervieu F, Michel C, Perrin C, Andréassian V, Anctil F, Loumagne C. Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall–runoff model? Part 2—Towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling. Journal of Hydrology 2004; 303(1–4): 290–306.  26.
Ward RC, Robinson M. Principles of Hydrology. 3^{rd} edition, McGraw Hill, London; 1989.  27.
Shaw EM. Hydrology in Practice. 3rd edition, Chapman and Hall, London; 1994.  28.
Doorenbos J, Pruit WO. Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 24, FAO, Rome; 1977.  29.
Alexandris S, Kerkides P. New empirical formula for hourly estimations of reference evapotranspiration. Agricultural Water Management 2003; 60(3): 157–180.  30.
Hounam CE. Problems of Evaporation Assessment in the Water Balance. Report on WMO/IHP Projects No. 13, World Health Organization, Geneva; 1971.  31.
Koutsoyiannis D. Seeking parsimony in hydrology and water resources technology. EGU General Assembly 2009, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 11, Vienna, 11469, European Geosciences Union; 2009 (http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/906/).  32.
Wagener T, Boyle DP, Lees MJ, Wheater HS, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S. A framework for development and application of hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 2001; 5(1): 13–26.  33.
Koutsoyiannis D, Xanthopoulos T. Engineering Hydrology, 3^{rd} ed., National Technical University of Athens, Athens; 1999.  34.
Kozanis S, Christofides A, Mamassis N, Efstratiadis A, Koutsoyiannis D. Hydrognomon – open source software for the analysis of hydrological data, EGU General Assembly 2010, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, Vienna, 12419, European Geosciences Union; 2010 (http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/962/).  35.
Tegos A. Simplification of evapotranspiration estimation in Greece. Postgraduate Thesis. Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering – National Technical University of Athens, Athens; 2007 (in Greek; http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/820/).  36.
Tegos A, Mamassis N, Koutsoyiannis D. Estimation of potential evapotranspiration with minimal data dependence. EGU General Assembly 2009, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 11, Vienna, 1937, European Geosciences Union; 2009.