Comparison of six evapotranspiration models for a surface irrigated maize agro-ecosystem in Northern Italy

•Direct methods for the ET estimation are more performing than indirect methods.•The PM model with different rc generally performs well also in the early crop growth stages.•The SW model provides good results for the entire agricultural season.•The FAO-56 models overestimate ET during middle and late crop growth stages.•Further research is needed to make direct methods more applicable operatively

The approaches for the estimation of evapotranspiration (ET) can be classified in “direct” methods, based on the original Penman–Monteith (PM) equation, in which the canopy resistance rc is modelled, and “indirect” methods, based on the preliminary calculation of ET for a well-watered reference grass (ETo) with a constant rc, which is then multiplied by a crop coefficient Kc to obtain ET. Even if the latter approaches are more widely adopted for their practical simplicity, many authors show that the former often provide better ET estimates in absence of calibration of crop parameters. In this study the performances of different direct and indirect methods were evaluated in the case of a surface irrigated maize grown in the Padana Plain (Northern Italy). The “one-layer” original PM equation with three different models for rc (Monteith, Jarvis, Katerji–Perrier), the “two-layers” PM model proposed by Shuttleworth and Wallace, the “single” and “double crop coefficient” models illustrated in the Paper FAO-56 were compared to latent heat fluxes measured in 2006 by eddy-covariance techniques. Results confirm that direct methods are more performing. The FAO-56 models with generalized crop coefficients overestimate ET, especially during the middle growth stage.