Turco, José Eduardo Pitelli [UNESP]Perecin, Dilermando [UNESP]Pinto Jr., Dorival Leão2014-05-272014-05-272008-01-01Irriga, v. 13, n. 1, p. 63-80, 2008.1413-78951808-3765http://hdl.handle.net/11449/70232The aim of this investigation was to evaluate four reference methods to estimate evapotranspiration (Makkink, Hargreaves, Class A pan and Radiation), compared tb Penman-Monteith method, that is considered standard by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Errors due to variable measurements in the reference evapotranspiration estimate were taken into consideration. The research was developed in an experimental area of the Department of Rural Engieering of the School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Campus of Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University. An automated weather station was used and it was equipped with sensors to measure global and net radiation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. The aftermath showed a better adjustment to Hargreaves. Makkink, Class A pan and Radiation methods are different from Penman-Monteith, therefore, they cannot be compared. To evaluate methods to estimate evapotranspiration and avoid possible evaluation errors, ETo estimate errors must be considered.63-80porClas A Pari e Solar RadiationHargreavesMakkinkPenman-MonteithAtmospheric humidityAtmospheric radiationAtmospheric temperatureError analysisEvapotranspirationIrrigationWindaccuracy assessmentcomparative studyestimation methodevapotranspirationexperimental studymeasurement methodnet radiationPenman-Monteith equationrelative humiditysolar radiationstandard (reference)temperaturewind velocityBrazilSao Paulo [Brazil]South AmericaArtigoAcesso aberto2-s2.0-435490874032-s2.0-43549087403.pdf7087372884726559