% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Li:890097,
      author       = {Li, Wanxin and Brunner, Philip and Li, Zhi and Wang,
                      Zhoufeng and Zhang, Zhengyu and Wang, Wenke and
                      Hendricks-Franssen, Harrie-Jan},
      title        = {{P}otential evaporation dynamics over saturated bare soil
                      and an open water surface},
      journal      = {Journal of hydrology},
      volume       = {590},
      issn         = {0022-1694},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-00686},
      pages        = {125140 -},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {Actual evaporation (Ea) can be calculated as a fraction of
                      potential evaporation (PE), which refers to the evaporation
                      rate if supply water is unlimited. Potential evaporation
                      depends on the available energy and the underlying material,
                      and different approaches to estimate potential evaporation
                      exist nowadays. This study provides a detailed analysis of
                      the evaporation dynamics over fully saturated, sandy soil
                      (PEs) and an open water surface (PEw). Moreover, the
                      performance of commonly used methods to estimate PE is
                      assessed. At the basis of these analyses is a lysimeter
                      experiment in the Guanzhong Basin, China, which allowed a
                      precise measurement of PE with a very high temporal
                      resolution. Temperature profiles in lysimeters and
                      meteorological data were also measured during the
                      experiment. A comparison of PEs and PEw was carried out for
                      seven consecutive days (August 11th to 17th, 2016). Results
                      show that PEw is smaller than PEs on a daily scale, with PEw
                      rates being bigger than PEs at night but smaller during
                      daytime. Furthermore, the temporal dynamics of PEw lags
                      4–5 h behind PEs. In accordance with the energy balance
                      equation, PE dynamics are mainly governed by “available
                      energy”. The PE rates calculated by Penman-Monteith (PM)
                      and Priestly-Taylor (PT) based on these measurements were
                      also evaluated. The measured PE is relatively well
                      reproduced by PM and PT equations. Finally, the effect of
                      using different approaches to estimate PE on calculating Ea
                      was tested by an integrated hydrological model that
                      calculates water flow in the unsaturated zone by solving the
                      Richards equation. The relative differences were up to
                      $17.5\%.$},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {690},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000599754500004},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125140},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/890097},
}