Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:32:30.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating hourly incoming solar radiation from limited meteorological data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kurt Spokas  and
Frank Forcella
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two major properties that determine weed seed germination are soil temperature and moisture content. Incident radiation is the primary variable controlling energy input to the soil system and thereby influences both moisture and temperature profiles. However, many agricultural field sites lack proper instrumentation to measure solar radiation directly. To overcome this shortcoming, an empirical model was developed to estimate total incident solar radiation (beam and diffuse) with hourly time steps. Input parameters for the model are latitude, longitude, and elevation of the field site, along with daily precipitation with daily minimum and maximum air temperatures. Field validation of this model was conducted at a total of 18 sites, where sufficient meteorological data were available for validation, allowing a total of 42 individual yearly comparisons. The model performed well, with an average Pearson correlation of 0.92, modeling index of 0.95, modeling efficiency of 0.80, root mean square error of 111 W m−2, and a mean absolute error of 56 W m−2. These results compare favorably to other developed empirical solar radiation models but with the advantage of predicting hourly solar radiation for the entire year based on limited climatic data and no site-specific calibration requirement. This solar radiation prediction tool can be integrated into dormancy, germination, and growth models to improve microclimate-based simulation of development of weeds and other plants.

Keywords

Energy balancegermination modelinglightmicroclimateweed development
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 182 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Acock, M. C. and Pachepsky, Y. A. 2000. Estimating missing weather data for agricultural simulations using group method of data handling. J. Appl. Meteor 39:1176–1184.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonić, O. 1998. Modelling daily topographic solar radiation without site-specific hourly radiation data. Ecol. Model 113:31–40.Google Scholar
[ASCE-EWRI] American Society of Civil Engineers—Environmental and Water Resources Institute. 2004. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation. Technical Committee report to the Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers from the Task Committee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration. 173 p.Google Scholar
Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Carey, S. K. 2004. Evaluation of solar radiation prediction models in North America. Agron. J 96:391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bristow, K. L. and Campbell, G. S. 1984. On the relationship between incoming solar radiation and daily maximum and minimum temperature. Agric. For. Meteor 31:159–166.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. S. and Norman, J. M. 1998. Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 167–183.Google Scholar
Diekkrüger, B., Söndgerath, D., Kersenbaum, K. C., and McVoy, C. W. 1995. Validity of agroecosystem models: a comparison of results of different models applied to the same data set. Ecol. Model 81:3–29.Google Scholar
Donatelli, M., Bellocchi, G., and Fontana, F. 2003. RadEst3.00: software to estimate daily radiation data from commonly available meteorological variables. Eur. J. Agron 18:363–367.Google Scholar
Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Hösch, J., Alud, Z., and Dubrovský, M. 2004. Comparison of CERES, WOFOST and SWAP models in simulating soil water content during growing season under different soil conditions. Ecol. Model 171:223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flerchinger, G. N. and Saxton, K. E. 1989. Simultaneous heat and water model of a freezing, snow-residue-soil system I. Theory and development. Trans. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.) 32:565–571.Google Scholar
Gates, D. M. 1980. Biophysical Ecology. New York: Springer-Verlag. 635 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautier, C., Diak, G., and Masse, S. 1980. A simple model to estimate the incident solar radiation at the surface from GOES satellite data. J. Appl. Meteor 19:1005–1012.Google Scholar
Goodwin, D. G., Hutchinson, J. M. S., Vanderclip, R. L., and Knapp, M. C. 1999. Estimating solar irradiance for crop modeling using daily air temperature data. Argon. J 91:845–851.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A. 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl. Eng. Agric 1:96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henggeler, J. C., Samani, Z., Flynn, M. S., and Zeitler, J. W. 1996. Evaluation of various evapotranspiration equations for Texas and New Mexico. Proceedings of Irrigation Association International Conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Idso, S. B. 1980. On the apparent incompatibility of different atmospheric thermal radiation data sets. Q. J. R. Meteor. Soc 106:375–376.Google Scholar
Lang, G. A. 1996. Plant Dormancy: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. 386 p.Google Scholar
Legates, D. R. and McCabe, G. J. 1999. Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res 35:233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lettenmaier, D. P. and Nijssen, B. 2001. BOREAS Follow-On HMet-03 Hourly Meteorological Data at Flux Towers, 1994–1996. Data set. Available at www.daac.ornl.gov from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 2001. Mechanisms of crop loss due to weed competition. Pages 233–253 in Peterson, R. K. D. and Higley, L. G. eds. Biotic Stress and Yield Loss. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Liu, B. Y. and Jordan, R. C. 1960. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct, diffuse, and total solar radiation. Sol. Energy 4:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. L. 1996. Incorporating diurnal light variation and canopy light attenuation into analytical equations for calculating daily gross photosynthesis. Ecol. Model 93:175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, R. and Hubbard, K. G. 2002. Effect of time of temperature observation and estimation of daily solar radiation for the Northern Great Plains, USA. Argon. J 94:723–733.Google Scholar
Mahmood, R. and Hubbard, K. G. 2005. Assessing bias in evapotranspiration and soil moisture estimates due to the use of modeled solar radiation and dew point temperature data. Agric. For. Meteor 130:71–84.Google Scholar
Mayer, D. G. and Butler, D. G. 1993. Statistical validation. Ecol. Model 68:21–32.Google Scholar
McVicar, T. R. and Jupp, D. L. B. 1999. Estimating one-time-of-day meteorological data as inputs to thermal remote sensing based energy balance models. Agric. For. Meteor 96:219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, D. R. 2005. Solar radiation modeling and measurements for renewable energy applications: data and model quality. Energy 30:1517–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, J. E., Kawabata, O., and Nishimoto, R. K. 2002. Modeling purple nutsedge sprouting under soil solarization. Weed Sci 50:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. 1965. Evaporation and the Environment. In the state and movement of water in living organisms. Pages 205–234 in Proceedings of the 19th Symposium, Society for Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolov, N. T. and Zeller, K. F. 1992. A solar radiation algorithm for ecosystem dynamic models. Ecol. Model 61:149–168.Google Scholar
Perez, R., Stewart, R., Arbogast, C., Seals, R., and Scott, J. 1986. An anisotropic hourly diffuse radiation model for sloping surfaces—description, performance evaluation, site dependency evaluation. Sol. Energy 36:481–498.Google Scholar
Sellers, W. D. 1965. Physical Climatology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 272 p.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Hager, A. G., Simmons, F. W., and Bollero, A. G. 2003. Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development. Weed Sci 51:898–903.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. E. and Running, S. W. 1999. An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity and precipitation. Agric. For. Meteor 93:211–228.Google Scholar
van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Dolman, A. J., and Schulze, E-D. 2005. Radiation, temperature, and leaf area explain ecosystem carbon fluxes in boreal and temperate European forests. Global Geochem. Cycles 19:GB2029. DOI:10.1029/2004GB002417.Google Scholar
Wang, S., Chen, W., and Cihlar, J. 2002. New calculation methods of diurnal distributions of solar radiation and its interception by canopy over complex terrain. Ecol. Model 155:191–204.Google Scholar
Wegehenkel, M. 2000. Test of a modeling system for simulating water balances and plant growth using various different complex approaches. Ecol. Model 129:39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmott, C. J. 1981. On the validation of models. Physical Geography 2:184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmott, C. J. 1982. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc 64:1309–1313.Google Scholar
Winslow, J. C., Hunt, E. R., and Piper, S. C. 2001. A globally applicable model of daily solar irradiance estimated from air temperature and precipitation data. Ecol. Model 143:227–243.Google Scholar
Wong, L. T. and Chow, W. K. 2001. Solar radiation model. Applied Energy 69:191–224.Google Scholar
Yin, X. 1996. Reconstructing monthly global solar radiation from air temperature and precipitation records: a general algorithm for Canada. Ecol. Model 88:39–44.Google Scholar