Part 03 · Evapotranspiration
WASR 4500/6500
WASR 4500/6500 · Lecture Part 03 · Interactive Companion

Evapotranspiration

Every second, water you cannot see leaves the ground you are standing on — from lakes, from soil, and through up to a hundred thousand microscopic gates on every square centimetre of leaf. Over most of the land surface this invisible flux is the largest term in the water balance, and it is also the one we measure worst. This companion teaches you to quantify it three ways for open water, to see how a plant does it, and to model both with one equation. Click a part of the landscape below (or a chapter card) to explore, experiment, and test yourself.

Companion to the Part 03 lecture slides · Evaristo Critical Zone Hydrology Lab, University of Georgia. Scores are self-assessment only — nothing is recorded, and progress resets if you reload.

Learning objectives — what you should be able to do
  1. Distinguish evaporation from transpiration and explain why the pan-evaporation paradox is not a paradox.
  2. Describe and apply the Energy Balance, Aerodynamic, and Combined (including Priestley–Taylor) methods for estimating evaporation rates.
  3. Describe the transpiration process and the methods used to measure it — sap flow and stable isotopes.
  4. Describe and apply the Penman–Monteith equation for modeling evapotranspiration, including atmospheric, leaf, and canopy conductance.
Chapter 1 · Why ET matters

The Invisible Flux

Rain announces itself. Streams can be gauged. But the flux that returns most of the rain to the sky leaves no puddle and makes no sound — and the first thing to understand about it is that there are two of it: a physical one and a biological one.

1 · Two processes, one word

Evaporation and transpiration

Evaporation is physics: liquid water at a free surface — a lake, a pan, a wet soil — gains enough energy to leave as vapor. Transpiration is biology: water absorbed by roots moves up through the plant and leaves as vapor through the stomata of its leaves. Both need energy, usually from the sun, and both respond to temperature, humidity, wind, and radiation. Transpiration adds two more levers — the plant type and the soil moisture in its root zone — because a plant can choose to close its gates. Together they are evapotranspiration (ET): in most catchments the largest term of the water balance, often exceeding runoff and recharge.

The lecture summarizes the contrast in a table. Here it is as a game — sort each statement to the process it describes, then check.

Where this lecture points: most of Part 03’s first lecture deals explicitly with evaporation — it is the cleaner physics, and the three methods you learn for it (Chapter 2) become the bones of the Penman–Monteith model of evapotranspiration (Chapter 4), which the second lecture and PBA #1 take on.
2 · A grade-school review, with the physics restored

Two jars

You have seen the picture since grade school: two jars of water in the sun, one sealed, one open, and the open one slowly emptying. The physics behind it carries the whole chapter. Molecules at the surface are always leaving; molecules in the vapor are always returning. In the sealed jar the vapor builds until the return traffic equals the departures — the air is saturated, and the vapor pressure above the water is the saturation vapor pressure es(T), a ceiling that rises steeply with temperature. In the open jar the vapor escapes, the air above the water never saturates, and net evaporation continues — faster when the air is warm, dry, and moving. Play with the temperature, the wind, and the lid, and watch the two-way traffic.

Two ideas to carry forward: evaporation needs energy (to free the molecules) and it needs removal (a gradient and a wind to carry vapor off, or the air fills up and stops accepting it). Chapter 2 turns each into a method — the energy balance and the aerodynamic method — and then combines them.
3 · The detective story

A warming Earth and the pan-evaporation paradox

Since 1850 the global surface temperature has climbed to about 1 °C above the twentieth-century average while atmospheric CO2 rose from roughly 285 to over 415 ppm. A warmer atmosphere should be thirstier, and evaporation from open water should have risen. Yet across the Northern Hemisphere, half a century of evaporation pans said the opposite: pan evaporation fell year after year. Two suspects were named. The humidity suspect: wetter surroundings make the air over the pan damper. The sunlight suspect: less solar energy is reaching the ground. Roderick and Farquhar (2002) worked the case with two clues you can reproduce below: the vapor pressure deficit had not changed in fifty years, and the diurnal temperature range had shrunk — night-time minima rising twice as fast as daytime maxima. Work both tabs, then watch the video.

The moral for a hydrologist: evaporation is an energy flux before it is a water flux. Temperature alone told the wrong story; the energy balance told the right one. Keep that in mind as Chapter 2 builds the methods from the energy budget up.
Chapter 1 quiz

Test yourself: the invisible flux

Scored, with explanations after grading. Retake as many times as you like — questions reshuffle.

Chapter 2 · Energy balance · aerodynamic · combined

Evaporation, Three Ways

How do you measure something you cannot see? You account for it. Put a control volume around a pan of water, write conservation of mass and of energy across its surface, and evaporation falls out as the only place the missing water and the missing energy could have gone.

1 · The pan as a control volume

From continuity and energy to the energy balance method

Draw a dashed cylinder around an evaporation pan (Chow et al., 1988). Inside are liquid water (density ρw) and water vapor (density ρa). The pan’s sides are impermeable, so the only way liquid mass leaves is as vapor — and the only way energy leaves with it is as latent heat. Write continuity for the liquid, continuity for the vapor, then the heat-energy equation from Notes01, and strip away every term that is zero for a pan. Fourteen equations later you hold the energy balance equation for evaporation. Step through the derivation below; each step lights up the piece of the pan it is about.

E = (RnHsG) / (lvρw)Eq. 13 — the energy balance method; with Hs = G = 0 it becomes Er = Rn/(lvρw), Eq. 14
lv = 2.501 × 106 − 2370 T   (J kg−1, T in °C)latent heat of vaporization — about 2.45 MJ per kilogram, 585 times the energy needed to warm that kilogram by one degree
Sensible vs. latent: sensible heat changes temperature — you can sense it with a thermometer. Latent heat changes phase; the temperature holds still while the energy hides in the vapor. The energy balance asks, of the incoming radiation, how much warms things up (Hs, G) and how much evaporates water (lvv)?
2 · The other bottleneck

The aerodynamic method and the saturation curve

Energy can free the molecules, but something must carry them away. The aerodynamic method looks at the air’s ability to transport vapor: a humidity gradient near the surface supplies the push, wind supplies the pull. The ratio of the vapor flux to the momentum flux (Thornthwaite and Holzman, 1939) leads to a working equation with a vapor transfer coefficient B that grows with wind speed and with surface roughness:

Ea = B (easea)    B = 0.102 u2 / [ln(z2/z0)]2Eqs. 15–16 — Ea in mm d−1, B in mm d−1 Pa−1, u2 in m s−1 at height z2 (cm), roughness height z0 = 0.01–0.06 cm for water
eas = 611 exp[17.27 T / (237.3 + T)]    ea = Rh easEqs. 17–18 — the Tetens formula (Pa, T in °C) and the ambient vapor pressure

The saturation vapor pressure is the ceiling from the two-jar review, and it rises exponentially with temperature: a gentle slope in the cold, a steep climb above 20 °C. Its slope, Δ = deas/dT, is the single most important number in the rest of this Part — it decides how readily added energy becomes added evaporation. Drag the temperature below and watch the tangent line; then set the humidity to see the deficit the wind has to work with.

3 · Both at once

The combined method and Priestley–Taylor

When energy is not limiting, use the aerodynamic method; when vapor transport is not limiting, use the energy balance. Usually neither is comfortably true, so Penman combined them — weighting the two estimates with Δ and the psychrometric constant γ (≈ 66.8 Pa °C−1) so that no surface temperature is needed:

E = [Δ/(Δ + γ)] Er + [γ/(Δ + γ)] Ea    Δ = 4098 eas / (237.3 + Ta)2Eqs. 19–20 — the weights always sum to one; warm air tilts the balance toward the energy term

The combination method is best for small areas with detailed climatology — net radiation, temperature, humidity, wind, pressure. Over very large areas energy governs, and Priestley and Taylor (1972) noticed that the aerodynamic term runs at about 30 % of the energy term, which collapses the equation to one that needs only radiation and temperature:

E = 1.3 [Δ/(Δ + γ)] ErEq. 21 — the Priestley–Taylor evaporation equation

A hydrologist should be able to hear a situation and name the method. Six situations below — tag each, then check.

4 · Any volunteer?

The sample problem, four ways

The lecture’s standing problem: average net radiation 185 W m−2, air temperature 28.5 °C, relative humidity 55 %, wind 2.7 m s−1 at 2 m, water density 996.3 kg m−3, roughness height 0.03 cm. Find the open-water evaporation in mm d−1 by the energy balance, aerodynamic, combined, and Priestley–Taylor methods, then ask: are the four answers comparable, and why? Solve along — nine intermediate values, each checked as you go — and the live calculator unlocks at the end so you can change the weather and see which method flinches.

Why they agree here: under these conditions neither energy nor vapor transport is strongly limiting, and at 28.5 °C the energy weight Δ/(Δ+γ) is already 0.77, so the combined estimate leans on Er. The aerodynamic share works out to 28 % of the energy share — almost exactly Priestley and Taylor’s 30 %. Cool the air to 10 °C in the calculator and watch them drift apart.
Chapter 2 quiz

Test yourself: evaporation, three ways

Scored, with explanations after grading. Retake as many times as you like — questions reshuffle.

Chapter 3 · Transpiration: process and measurement

The Plant’s Bargain

A plant lives by taking CO2 from the air, and CO2 can only enter its tissue dissolved in water. So the leaf opens a wet cavity to the sky — and every open stoma leaks vapor. Transpiration is not a leak the plant failed to fix. It is the price of breathing.

1 · Absorption, translocation, transpiration

The journey through the plant

Three steps (Hewlett, 1982): absorption of soil water by roots; translocation, in liquid form, through the vascular system of roots, stem, and branches to the leaves and on through the leaf’s veins to the walls of tiny stomatal cavities, where evaporation takes place; and transpiration proper, as the vapor in the cavity moves out through the stoma. Click any part of the leaf to learn what it does, play the water’s journey from root hair to sky, and then dial the stomatal density — 10,000 to 100,000 gates per square centimetre — to see how crowded a leaf surface is.

2 · The plant’s thermostat

Guard cells and leaf conductance

Every stoma is flanked by two guard cells that swell and shrink to open and close it. They respond to five signals — remember L-I-G-H-T: Light intensity, Internal (ambient) CO2, the vapor-pressure Gradient between leaf and air, Heat (leaf temperature), and Turgidity (leaf water content). Dingman turns four of them into factor functions that reduce a maximum leaf conductance C*leaf:

Cleaf = C*leaf · fK(Kin) · fρρv) · fT[T(zm)] · fθθ)    Ccan = ks · LAI · CleafEqs. 4–5 of the second lecture — radiation, humidity deficit, temperature, and soil-moisture deficit each scale the conductance between 0 and 1; the canopy adds leaf area and a shelter factor

Run the control room. Each slider is one environmental signal, using the same factor functions as the class spreadsheet; the stoma redraws with the resulting conductance, and the canopy conductance you will need in Chapter 4 updates alongside.

Two checkpoints in one picture: a leaf’s conductance is set by how many stomata it has and how wide they are open; the canopy’s conductance multiplies that by leaf area index and discounts the sheltered leaves (ks = 0.5–1, smaller as LAI grows). Both numbers are tiny compared with what the air can carry — which is the whole story of Chapter 4.
3 · Measuring it — with heat

Sap flow: the heat-pulse method

You cannot put a rain gauge on a tree, but you can time its sap. Sap-flow methods apply heat at one level on the trunk — continuously or in pulses — and watch how fast it travels upward with the sap stream. In the heat-pulse configuration (Dingman; Smith & Allen, 1996) a heater probe sits between two thermistors, one xu below and one xd above. Heat spreads by conduction in both directions but is carried by the sap in only one; the moment the two sensors read the same temperature, te, tells you how far the sap has shifted the pulse:

vh = (xdxu) / (2 te)heat-pulse velocity by the compensation principle — independent of the wood’s thermal diffusivity

Converting velocity to a flux needs the cross-sectional area of conducting sapwood — the ring between the cambium (radius R) and the heartwood boundary (radius h) — which varies with species and site. Set a sap velocity, fire a pulse, read te off the traces, and scale the tree up.

From Smith & Allen (1996): every sap-flow method uses heat as a tracer, but by different principles — heat pulse (timing, as above), stem and trunk-sector heat balance (account for every watt and solve for the heat carried by the sap), and thermal dissipation (Granier’s empirical ΔT between a heated probe and a reference, which should be calibrated for new species). Heat-pulse velocity is not quite sap velocity: probe materials, wounding, and the wood matrix all slow the heat, and Marshall’s (1958) corrections turn vh into a sap flux.
4 · Measuring it — with isotopes

A rainforest under glass

Heavy water is a label. Rain, soil water, plant water, and vapor each carry a distinct ratio of 2H and 18O (Notes04), and because root uptake does not fractionate, a plant’s xylem water carries the signature of the water its roots took. Inside the Biosphere 2 Tropical Rain Forest — 1,936 m2 under glass, 92 plant species, rain on command — Evaristo et al. (2019) imposed a 68-day drought, then broke it with 66 mm of rain labeled at +152 ‰ δ2H over four events, followed by background rain at −60 ‰. For nine months they followed the label into seepage, soil water, and five tree species. Mix the sources in the first tab, then read the ages in the second.

The result that rejected the null hypothesis: seepage (recharge) took about 9 days; water taken up by roots was 2–7 times older (17–62 days by species), and 89 ± 6 % of it came from the less-mobile soil matrix rather than the freely draining water that recharges groundwater. Trees and streams sample different water — separated in space and in time.
5 · Transpiration at landscape scale

Afforestation and the water it costs

Multiply one tree’s thirst by a plateau. China’s Loess Plateau went from roughly one-third vegetated in 1999 to two-thirds by 2019 — and the new forests are dying back in dry spells. The clue is a ghost from the atomic age: tritium from 1960s bomb tests, carried down by that decade’s rain, now sits 7–14 m deep, because water creeps downward only 1–2 m a year. The planted trees root 5–15 m down. They are drinking rain that fell before their planters were born — paleo-water — and running up a hydrological debt. Run the bank account below: a deep-soil reservoir that recharges slowly and a plantation that withdraws faster, with the adaptive strategies from the video as switches.

Chapter 3 quiz

Test yourself: the plant’s bargain

Scored, with explanations after grading. Retake as many times as you like — questions reshuffle.

Chapter 4 · Modeling evapotranspiration

The Penman–Monteith Machine

Penman (1948) welded the energy balance to the aerodynamic method. Monteith (1965) added the plant: one more resistance, in series with the air’s. The result is the most widely used equation in evapotranspiration — and once you can read its four parts, it is not intimidating at all.

1 · Anatomy

The equation, dissected

The numerator holds the two drivers: the energy available for ET and the drying power of the air. The denominator holds the two brakes: the energy cost of vaporizing water and the overall resistance to vapor transfer, which combines the atmosphere’s and the canopy’s. Hover or tap each part of the equation to read its role, then try the four “what if” buttons — each kills one term and tells you what happens to ET.

2 · The plumbing

Two resistances in series

Open-water evaporation crosses one resistance: the atmosphere’s, 1/Cat. Transpiration is a two-step process — from the stomatal cavity to the leaf surface, then from the leaf surface into the air — so the same driving force Δev operates across two resistances in series: 1/Cleaf and 1/Cat. Series resistances add, so whichever conductance is smaller sets the pace. The atmospheric conductance comes from the wind profile over the canopy:

Cat = u(zm) / { 6.25 [ln((zmzd)/z0)]2 }Eq. 3 of the second lecture — zd the zero-plane displacement height, z0 the roughness height; the class spreadsheet uses zm = zveg + 2, zd = 0.7 zveg, z0 = 0.1 zveg

Wire the circuit: set the wind and canopy height for Cat, set the canopy conductance, and watch the current — the vapor flux — respond. The factor (1 + Cat/Ccan) in the Penman–Monteith denominator is this circuit in one number.

Imagine a forest. Above the trees the wind blows freely; inside, it dies. The wind profile behaves as if the ground had been lifted to the zero-plane displacement height zd; the roughness height z0 says how much the canopy churns the air — a smooth field barely disturbs it, a rough forest makes turbulence, and turbulence is what carries vapor away.
3 · The class spreadsheet, alive

Penman–Monteith sensitivity lab

This is PenmanMonteith.xlsx rebuilt cell for cell (modified from Dingman, 3rd ed.): twelve inputs, the intermediate values, and the ET rate — 0.583 mm d−1 for the default overcast day over a 16.5-m forest. The assignment asks you to explore the effect of any two inputs on ET and describe the sensitivity with graphs. Move a slider to change one input; pick a variable to sweep it across its range; and read the tornado chart, which nudges every input ±20 % and ranks what matters.

What the machine teaches: with Cat hundreds of times larger than Ccan, this forest is canopy-controlled — wind barely matters, leaf area matters enormously, and a hot day can lower ET because the humidity deficit closes the stomata (fρ) faster than the extra energy opens the tap. That is not a spreadsheet quirk; it is what a stressed canopy does.
4 · The class example

A corn field in south Georgia, step by step

Calculate ET for a corn field on a typical July day: net radiation K + L = 400 W m−2, air temperature 25 °C, relative humidity 60 %, wind 3 m s−1 at 2 m, canopy height 2 m, LAI = 4, pressure 101.3 kPa. The temperature-dependent parameters are given: Δ = 0.189 kPa °C−1, γ = 0.0665 kPa °C−1, ρa = 1.18 kg m−3, ρw = 997 kg m−3, λv = 2.45 × 106 J kg−1, ca = 1013 J kg−1 °C−1, e*a = 3.17 kPa. Work the four steps; each one checks your number before the next opens.

Chapter 4 quiz

Test yourself: the Penman–Monteith machine

Scored, with explanations after grading. Retake as many times as you like — questions reshuffle.