Evaluation of a Penman–Monteith approach to provide “reference” and crop canopy leaf wetness duration estimates

• Published in: Agricultural and forest meteorology 2006-12, Vol.141 (2), p.105-117
• Main Authors: Sentelhas, Paulo C., Gillespie, Terry J., Gleason, Mark L., Monteiro, José Eduardo B.M., Pezzopane, José Ricardo M., Pedro, Mário J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agricultural and forest climatology and meteorology. Irrigation. Drainage; Agricultural and forest meteorology; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; air temperature; albedo (reflectance); Biological and medical sciences; canopy; crops; Dew; disease outbreaks; duration; estimation; evaporation; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General agronomy. Plant production; Generalities. Disease free stocks; height; Integrated pest management; lawns and turf; leaf wetness duration; leaves; mathematical models; measurement; new methods; Physical model; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection; Plant disease; plant diseases and disorders; Rain; relative humidity; simulation models; solar radiation; Warning system; water; Water balance and requirements. Evapotranspiration; wind speed
• ISSN: 0168-1923; 1873-2240
• DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.09.010

Leaf wetness duration (LWD) is a key parameter for plant disease-warning systems since the risk of outbreaks of many plant diseases is directly proportional to this environmental variable. However, LWD is not widely measured so several methods have been developed to estimate it from weather data. Methods based on the physical principles of dew deposition and dew or rain evaporation have shown good portability and sufficiently accurate results for operational use. A Penman–Monteith approach to modeling LWD on a “reference” wetness sensor located at a weather station was investigated as well as the use of an empirical wetness coefficient ( W) to convert “reference” LWD into crop LWD. This study was undertaken because recent observations revealed that an LWD sensor located about 30 cm above a turfgrass surface provided useful estimates of LWD in various nearby crops, suggesting that modeling such a sensor and location may be a simpler “reference” alternative to modeling LWD in a crop canopy. LWD was measured over mowed turfgrass at different heights (30, 110, and 190 cm above the ground) and at the top of the canopy of eight crops – apple, coffee, cotton, maize, muskmelon, grape, soybean, and tomato – using painted flat-plate sensors. At the same times and places, automatic weather stations measured air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and net radiation over turfgrass. A Penman–Monteith approach estimated sensor LWD over turfgrass with very good accuracy and precision, using an additional aerodynamic resistance based on wind speed to estimate LWD at 110 and 30 cm. The model overestimated LWD by 3.3% at 190 cm ( R 2 = 0.92), 1.5% at 110 cm ( R 2 = 0.87), and 5.7% at 30 cm ( R 2 = 0.89). When modeled LWD for a 30-cm height over turfgrass was correlated with LWD measured at the top of crop canopies, strong agreement was observed, with an average overestimation of 6.3% and a coefficient of determination of 0.92 for five crops combined. The use of both general and specific W coefficients reduced the average overestimation and the mean absolute error in LWD to less than 1 h/day. When independent data from four crops were use to evaluate crop LWD estimates by this two-step Penman–Monteith approach, mean absolute error was