Actual evapotranspiration for a reference crop within measured and future changing climate periods in the Mediterranean region

The study compares two formulas for calculating the daily evapotranspiration ET0 for a reference crop. The first formula was proposed by Allen et al. (AL), while the second one was proposed by Katerji and Perrier with the addition of the carbon dioxide (CO2) effect on evapotranspiration (KP). The study analyses the impact of the calculation by the two formulas on the irrigation requirement (IR). Both formulas are based on the Penman-Monteith equation but adopt different approaches for parameterising the canopy resistance rc. In the AL formula, rc is assumed constant and not sensitive to climate change, whereas in the KP formula, rc is first parameterised as a function of climatic variables, then ET0 is corrected for the air CO2 concentration. The two formulas were compared in two periods. The first period involves data from two sites in the Mediterranean region within a measured climate change period (1981–2006) when all the input climatic variables were measured. The second period (2070–2100) involves data from a future climate change period at one site when the input climatic variables were forecasted for two future climate scenarios (A2 and B2). The annual cumulated values of ET0 calculated by the AL formula are systematically lower than those determined by the KP formula. The differences between the ET0 estimation with the AL and KP formulas have a strong impact on the determination of the IR for the reference crop. In fact, for the two periods, the annual values of IR when ET0 is calculated by the AL formula are systematically lower than those calculated by the KP formula. For the actual measured climate change period, this reduction varied from 26 to 28 %, while for the future climate change period, it varied based on the scenario from 16 % (A2) to 20 % (B2).