Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

An alternative to define canopy surface temperature bounds

P. Widmoser
Hydrology and Water Resources Department, Ecology Centre, University of Kiel, D-24098 Kiel, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Canopy temperature, which may be estimated by infrared thermometry (IRT), can serve as an
Received 20 January 2009 indicator of plant water status. Idso et al. (1981a, 1986) proposed the nowadays much used concept
Accepted 22 September 2009 of the crop water stress index, which relates observed canopy surface temperature (Ts) to maxima
Available online 17 October 2009
and minima temperature bounds. Jackson et al. (1981) defined those bounds on the basis of the
energy balance. Those bounds vary with the meteorological situation. In this paper a chart is offered
Keywords: for general use with a fixed frame for the upper and lower bound. It relates canopy surface
Energy balance
temperatures with r1(=1 + rc/ra)-values (rc the canopy resistance and ra the aerodynamic resistance)
Infrared thermometry
Upper and lower bounds
as a function of a specifically defined temperature sum (S). It links the curved lower bound with the
Crop water stress straight upper bound by a bundle of r1-curves (the Ts–S–r1-chart). The lower bound can be expressed
by an equation, which approximates the energy balance solution with high accuracy. The sensitivity
of the upper bound is also discussed. A comparison was made between bounds following Jackson
et al. (1981) and the proposed alternative method, which, however, is limited by the short data-set
available for this paper.
ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. The upper and lower temperature bounds

The difference between air and canopy surface temperature is According to Jackson et al. (1981) canopy surface temperature
in some way related to plant water stress. Since canopy surface Ts is determined by the specific meteorological situation as well as
temperature can be estimated by infrared thermometry (IRT), the crop water status as expressed by the canopy resistance rc
many efforts have been made to investigate and formalize this
relationship (e.g. Kimes, 1983; Nielsen, 1994; Jones, 1999; Alves ra A r 1 g ðT a Þ esat ðT a Þ  ea
Ts  Ta ¼  (1)
et al., 2000; Qiu et al., 2000; Alderfasi and Nielsen, 2001; Al-Faraj cv DðT a Þ þ r 1 g ðT a Þ DðT a Þ þ r 1 g ðT a Þ
et al., 2001; Patel et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Mahan et al., 2005;
where Ta is the air temperature; Ts the canopy surface tempera-
Wanjura et al., 2006; González-Dugo et al., 2006; Shimoda and
ture; ea the vapor pressure of the air; esat(Ta) the vapor pressure of
Oikawa, 2006; Sanchez et al., 2008; Testi et al., 2008).
the air at saturation; A the available energy as (Rn  G), with Rn the
Idso et al. (1981a, 1986) introduced the concept of a crop
net radiation; G the heat flux below the canopy; cv the volumetric
water stress index (CWSI), which links the canopy surface
heat capacity of (moist) air at constant atmospheric pressure,
temperature (Ts) to an upper (bup) and lower (b) temperature
depending on Ta, Ts, ea and atmospheric pressure pa; D the slope of
bound, where CWSI = (bup  Ts)/(bup  b). Jackson et al. (1981)
the saturated vapor pressure–temperature relation; g(Ta) the
gave a theoretical underpinning foundation to this concept,
psychrometric coefficient as a function of Ta; r1 = 1 + rc/ra, with rc
whereby vapor pressure deficit, available net radiation, and the
the canopy resistance and ra the aerodynamic resistance.
canopy resistance enter as additional parameters. Whereas the
Eq. (1) represents the energy balance in the form of the
upper bound appears unambiguous, the lower bound may be
Penman–Monteith approximation, which allows to replace Ts by Ta
defined in various ways.
on the right side of Eq. (1).
In this paper possible definitions of lower bounds are briefly
Jackson et al. (1981) defined two extreme situations on the
discussed and some limitations of the baseline-concept as
basis of Eq. (1). If canopy resistance rc ! 1, then the surface heats
formulated by Jackson et al. (1981) are shown. An alternative is
up by radiation and the maximum temperature difference
offered, based on theoretical considerations.
dT = Ts  Ta is described by:

ra A
dT max ¼ (2)
E-mail address: widmoser@hydrology.uni-kiel.de. cv

0378-3774/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.012
 P. Widmoser / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230 225

This so-called upper baseline (bup in Fig. 1) has values dT  0. An

Nomenclature
example is shown in Fig. 1.
A lower (no-water-stress) baseline follows by inserting into
A external energy available for evaporation as Eq. (1) the value rc = 0. The temperature difference between an
difference between net radiation flux density evaporating wet surface and air temperature Ta is then represented
(Rn) and soil and/or vegetation heat flux density by:
(G); A = Rn  G (W m2)
dT ¼ d  sVPD (3)
b lower (no-water-stress) baseline according to Fig. 1
in Jackson et al. (1981), Fig. 1 (8C) with intercept
bmin minimum baseline connecting lowest points (with
ra A g ðT a Þ
maximum VPD) of b according to Fig. 1 in Jackson d¼ (3a)
cv DðT a Þ þ g ðT a Þ
et al. (1981) (8C)
bup upper (water-stress) baseline, Fig. 1 (8C) slope
cp mass heat capacity of dry air under constant atmo- 1
s¼ (3b)
spheric pressure, ca 1010 J kg1 K1 (J kg1 K1) DðT a Þ þ g ðT a Þ
cv volumetric heat capacity of (moist) air at constant
and VPD is the vapor pressure deficit defined as esat(Ta)  ea.
atmospheric pressure, depending on Ta, Ts, ea and pa
In this case, temperature differences dT may either be positive (raA
(ca 1200 J m3 K1) (J m3 K1)
high and VPD low) or negative, depending on VPD and the relation
CWSI crop water stress index of sensible/latent heat flux coupled with it. It can theoretically
d intercept of lower baseline according to Jackson be related to potential evaporation (Jackson et al., 1981).
et al. (1981) (8C) According to Jackson et al. (1981), the lower baseline depends on
d* intercept of reference line (8C) air temperature and is formed by a family of lines, one for each
dT temperature difference Ts  Ta (8C) temperature Ta. Fig. 1 gives an example for Ta = 30 8C and raA = 6 kPa.
dTmax maximum temperature difference dT (8C) Along each straight Ta-line, relative humidity rh decreases from left
E evaporation mass flux density (kg m2 s1) to right. The lowest point is reached for rh = 0. Such lowest points for
ea air vapor pressure (Pa) various Ta-values (0, 10, 20, 30, 40 8C) are marked by symbols along
the upper bmin-curve (full line) in Fig. 1.
esat vapor pressure of saturated air (Pa)
Many authors used this concept to plot field data within the dT–
H convective (sensible) heat flux density (W m2)
VPD-coordinate-system (e.g. Idso et al., 1981b; Peñuelas et al.,
IRT infrared thermometry
1992; Stockle and Dugas, 1992; Yazar et al., 1999; Alves and
pa atmospheric pressure (Pa) Pereira, 2000; Alderfasi and Nielsen, 2001; Patel et al., 2001; Orta
ra aerodynamic resistance of boundary layer (s m1) et al., 2003; Yuan et al., 2004; Luquet et al., 2004; González-Dugo
rc canopy resistance to vapor transport (s m1) et al., 2006; Payero and Irmak, 2006; Shimoda and Oikawa, 2006;
rh relative humidity of air Emekli et al., 2007; Kar and Kumar, 2007; Li et al., 2008; Testi et al.,
rH resistance to heat transport (s m1) 2008). They fit observed dT- and VPD-data to a straight line. Such
rV resistance to vapor transport (s m1) lines will be called reference lines in this paper. They do not fulfil
r1 1 + rc/ra the condition of a lower baseline as defined above and shown by
r1_low lower r1-curve selected from the Ts–S–r1-chart the full bmin-curve in Fig. 1. With r1 > 1, they have a slope s* smaller
than s (s* = s/r1) and an intercept d* bigger than d with
r1_up upper r1-curve selected from the Ts–S–r1-chart
r1_actual r1-values calculated according to Eq. (5) or Eq. (9)  r 1 ½DðT a Þ þ g ðT a Þ
d ¼d (4)
or observed DðT a Þ þ r1 g ðT a Þ
S surface temperature control sum, Eq. (8), a physio-
Fig. 1 gives examples of reference lines for lettuce (le) and
meteorological parameter (8C) groundnuts (gr), approximated from literature.
S0 S for a fully evaporating wet surface, i.e. r1 = 1 (8C) A reference line can, however, be adjusted to a lower baseline
s slope of lower baseline according to Jackson et al. using:
(1981) (K Pa1)
s* slope of reference line (K Pa1)
DðT a ÞdT þ VPD
r1 ¼  (5)
g ðT a ÞðdT  ra A=cv Þ
Ta air temperature (8C)
Ts canopy surface temperature (8C) and transforming s* to s and d* to d.
T S0 surface temperature of fully evaporating wet Eq. (5) corresponds to Eq. (12) in Jackson et al. (1981).
canopy (8C) Definition and application of the baseline-concept as discussed
Ts_up upper bound surface temperature (8C) above give rise to the following comments:
VPD vapor pressure deficit as esat(Ta)  ea (Pa)
- Eqs. (1) and (5) are derived by applying an approximated solution
DT negative temperature deviation from upper bound
of the energy balance as suggested by Penman (1948) and
(8C)
extended by Monteith (1965). For extreme meteorological
D slope of the saturated vapor pressure–temperature situations this approximation leads to errors (Paw and Gao,
relation (Pa K1) 1988; Paw, 1992; Widmoser, 2009). For this, the full and dotted
g psychrometric coefficient; depends on surface lower baseline b and the full and dotted bmin-curves may be
temperature and atmospheric pressure (Pa K1) compared (Fig. 1). For dry, hot weather exact solutions deviate up
l latent heat of evaporation (2454 MJ kg1 at 20 8C), to several degrees from the approximations.
depends on surface temperature Ts (J kg1) - For different raA-values, Eq. (3a) gives different intercepts d,
i.e. different lower reference lines, and does not allow for a
226 P. Widmoser / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230

The derivation of Eq. (6) is given in Appendix A. In Eq. (6) esat and
g are now functions of Ts and no longer of Ta as in Eq. (1).
- The right side terms of Eq. (6) are lumped together, so that Eq. (6)
reads
esat ðT s Þ
þ Ts ¼ S (7)
r 1 g ðT s Þ

with
ra ea
S ¼ Ta þ Aþ (8)
cv r 1 g ðT s Þ

Unit of S is 8C. S corresponds to S/r1 in Widmoser (2009).

Since S combines the physiological term rc (as part of r1) with
relevant meteorological data, it may be considered as a physio-
meteorological parameter. Ts in Eq. (8) may be replaced by Ta
introducing only negligible errors (Widmoser, 2009). For r1 the
following equation is valid:
Fig. 1. Examples for base and reference lines. bup: upper baseline for raA = 6 kPa; b:  1
lower baseline for Ta = 30 8C and raA = 6 kPa; bmin: curve with lowest possible esat ðT s Þ  ea r a A
baseline-points (i.e. rh = 0); full lines: according to Jackson et al. (1981) with
r1 ¼  dT (9)
g ðT s Þ cv
Penman approximation; dashed lines: exact solution; symbols (*) for Ta = 0, 10, 20,
30 and 40 8C from left to right; reference lines as examples for lettuce (le), Alentejo/ - Selected r1-values, including the ones representing the upper
Portugal (Alves et al., 2000) and groundnuts (gr), Orissa/India (Kar and Kumar, (r1 = 1) and lower (r1 = 1) bound are plotted against S instead of
2007), approximated from literature.
VPD. This leads to a bundle of smooth r1-curves, which gradually
straightforward identification of the Ts–VPD relationship. The change from the bent lower bound to the straight upper bound
same holds for Eq. (2), which defines different upper bounds for (Fig. 2).
different raA-values. A fixed reference system for the upper and
lower bound, applicable to any specified meteorological situa-
tion, would be preferable. 3.1. The lower bound alternative
- In practice lower reference lines are developed by linear
regression of selected observations plotted in the dT–VPD- Putting r1 = 1, i.e. rc = 0, in Eqs. (7) and (8) results in a r1 = 1-
coordinate-system following Eq. (3). For a reasonable linear curve as illustrated in Fig. 2 as the rightmost curve. Widmoser
fitting, field data have to be selected carefully under comparable (2009) showed that this curve can be fitted by:
meteorological conditions, usually around noon under clear sky
(Alves and Pereira, 2000) and similar wind conditions. T S0 ¼ 28:35 lnðS0 þ 34:7Þ  107:4 (10)

3. Suggestion for an alternative where index 0 indicates that rc = 0. Even if g(Ts) in Eq. (8) is
replaced by g(Ta) to calculate S0, the fitting is quite accurate with
The following describes a possibility to overcome the above standard deviation SD  0.1 8C, coefficient of determination
shortcomings. The essential points are: R2 = 0.99996 and with maximum and minimum deviations of
0.32 and 0.35 8C, respectively. It proves to be more accurate than
- Eq. (1) is replaced by the energy balance equation in the form of: the Penman approximation (Fig. 3).
This lower baseline appears as one single curve for any
esat ðT s Þ ra ea
þ Ts ¼ Ta þ A þ (6) (realistic) combination of Ta-, ea- and raA-values. It replaces the
r 1 g ðT s Þ cv r 1 g ðT s Þ

Fig. 2. The Ts–S–r1-chart. Straight dashed line to the left: upper bound. Rightmost curve: lower bound. In between curves for selected r1-values. For S see Eq. (8).
 P. Widmoser / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230
Fig. 3. Lower bound. Dashed curves: exact solution of Eq. (6) with r1 = 1; (a) fitted by
Eq. (10) using g(Ta) instead of g(Ts) in Eq. (8). (b) Symbols represent Penman
approximation.
bmin-curve of Jackson et al. (1981) as given in Fig. 1 as full line. If it is
assumed that Ts as observed in agricultural practice ranges
between 0 and 50 8C, S0 will lie between around 9 and 200 8C.
There is no alternative solution for the upper bound. Putting
r1 ! 1 in Eq. (1), as defined by Jackson et al. (1981) or as defined as
an alternative in this paper in Eq. (6), leads to the same result
formulated as:
ra
Ts up ¼ Ta þ A (11)
cv
with Ts_up is the upper bound surface temperature.
Example 1. The application of Eq. (10) is illustrated using a data-
set supplied by Alves and described by Alves et al. (2000). It
represents field observations in Portugal on drip irrigated lettuce.
Fig. 4 gives Ts-values observed along with lower [Eq. (10)] and
upper [Eq. (11)] bounds.
One may interpret Fig. 4 as an illustration of increasing water
stress in the afternoon, starting around 2.00 pm (solar time) in
Fig. 4a (normal day), and around 12.00 am in Fig. 4b (hot day).
3.2. The Ts–S–r1-chart and reference curves
Just as for the T S0 S0 relation [Eq. (10)], fitting can be applied to
any other r1-curve. Tests by the author have shown that good
fitting is obtained by using 3rd-order polynomials from r1 = 2 to
100. For r1 > 100, linear fitting becomes justified.
In this paper Ts–S–r1 relations are presented only by a chart as
shown in Fig. 2. The chart was established by solving Eq. (7) for
selected r1-values and taking S as the independent variable. The
227
Fig. 4. Drip irrigated lettuce (data from Alves et al., 2000) for different solar
daytimes. Ts-observed = full lines; lower and upper bounds = dashed lines; lower
bounds: black = alternative solution [Eq. (10)]; grey dots = solution of Eq. (6) in
Jackson et al. (1981). (a) normal day; (b) hot day.
results were incorporated in an Excel-file, which contains 24 r1-
curves. The file is available from the author on request.
The chart demonstrates that slopes of the r1-curves, i.e. dTs/dS,
increase with increasing r1 until they reach a maximum of 1:1 for
the upper bound, which is a straight line (leftmost line in Fig. 2).
This straight line follows directly from Eq. (7): Ts ! S if r1 ! 1. The
same result will also be obtained if esat(Ts) ! ea, i.e. under very
humid conditions (rh ! 1).
One may plot field observations of Ts- against S-values within
the chart using Eqs. (8) and/or (9). One may then use the chart to
select by eye-fitting the r1-curves coming closest to the observa-
tion points, the left curve then representing the upper bound (not
necessarily r1 = 1) and the right curve the lower bound (not
necessarily r1 = 1). These curves represent reference curves as
proposed in this article, replacing reference lines s defined above.
Example 2. To demonstrate Ts–S–r1 relations, the above data-set is
used again. Fig. 5 presents observed Ts-values for two different
days as a function of S together with the r1-grid. On the basis of this
information one might select for the data-sets 1a (normal day) and
1b (hot day) just by eye-fitting a lower bound of r1_low = 1.3
(instead of r1 = 1) and an upper bound of r1_up = 9 (instead of
228 P. Widmoser / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230

Fig. 5. The Ts–S–r1-chart with different data-sets. Dashed lines: upper and lower bounds. Data-set 1: irrigated lettuce (Alves et al., 2000). 1a = normal day; 1b = hot day. Data-
set 2: cork oaks after extended dry period (private information from A. Pitacco).

r1 = 1) to adjust to the specific situation (Fig. 5). The corresponding Table 1

r1-values for different DT. A = 0 W m2; ea = 1 kPa.
ra-values being known as 33 and 12 s m1, result in rc-values of 10
and 96 s m1, respectively. In addition to traditional ways it DT [8C]
becomes possible to formulate e.g. a crop water stress index based S [8C] 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0
on r1-values like
10 16.0 5.7 2.2 1.5
r 1 u p  r 1 actual 15 51.4 19.6 9.0 5.0
CWSI ¼ 1  (12) 20 98.0 37.9 17.9 9.6
r 1 u p  r 1 low
25 158.7 61.8 29.6 15.7
where r1_actual stands for r1-calculated according to Eq. (5) or Eq. (9) 30 236.8 92.6 44.6 23.5

or observed.
The data-set 2 in Fig. 5 follows from observations on cork oaks
after an extended dry period (data supplied by A. Pitacco).
4. Sensitivity of the upper bound as related to Ts
IRT-observations may depart from real canopy temperatures
especially under dry conditions (Alves et al., 2000). This has
consequences especially for the estimation of the upper bound.
Example 3
Fig. 6 shows an example of Ts as a function of r1. The upper
bound is reached asymptotically for r1 ! 1, but already small
deviations DT from it reduce r1 appreciably.
Table 1 gives examples of such reductions and demonstrates
that it is not reasonable to use r1 = 1 if one has to tolerate DT 8C
deviations. For example: for a cool (Ta = 10 8C) and humid
(rh = 0.81) night (A supposed to be 0 W m2) the upper limits to
be considered for r1 are 16, 5.7, 2.2 or 1.5 (first row in Table 1)
instead of r1 = 1, if one has to tolerate Ts-deviations of less than 0.2,
0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 8C, respectively. Considerations along these lines are
for example appropriate if one refers to standardized surface
resistances (Allen et al., 2006). For ra  5 (much wind) or ra  50
(little wind) maximal rc-values obtainable by erroneous IRT-
observations would be for the above example: 75, 23.5, 6 and
2.5 s m1 for windy nights and 750, 235, 60 and 25 s m1 for calm
nights. Allen et al. (2006) recommend during night rc = 200 s m1.
5. Comparison of boundaries
Lower bounds as defined in this article by Eq. (10), were
compared with the bmin-curve (Fig. 1), using Eq. (6) in Jackson et al.
(1981). Lower bounds for the normal day (Fig. 4a) are practically
the same. For the hot day the maximum difference is 0.7 8C
(Fig. 4b). The values of Jackson et al. (1981) are higher than the
alternative ones with the differences increasing during daytime.
This is in line with the prediction in Fig. 1, where the values of
Jackson et al. (1981) are higher (bmin full curve) than the alternative
ones (bmin dashed curve). No comparison was made for CWSI-
values. With the limited data-set at the author’s disposal it was not
reasonable to establish a reference line.

6. Summary and conclusions

The energy balance equation is presented in the form of a Ts–S–

Fig. 6. Ts as a function of r1 for A = 0 W m2; Ta = 20 8C; ea = 1 kPa; Dashed line:
upper bound Ts_up; dotted line: Ts_up DT.
r1-chart. This chart contains a bundle of curves, along which the r1-
values are constant. The geometry of these curves changes
gradually from the curved no-water-stress bound (r1 = 1) to the
straight water stress bound (r1 = 1). Plotting Ts-observations as
a function of S [defined in Eq. (8)] within this chart allows by
 P. Widmoser / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230
eye-fitting to select appropriate r1-curves coming closest to the
plotted observations. This appears to be a quite direct and flexible
approach to define upper and lower reference curves adjusted to
local and specific plant conditions. The method avoids the
Penman-linearization of the energy balance equations and the
linear fitting of observed data, carefully selected to represent
comparable weather conditions.
The lower bound (r1 = 1), i.e. the lowest reference curve, is a
well defined single curve, fitted with high accuracy by a simple
function [Eq. (10)]. The upper bound is given by Ts = S. Both
functions are of general validity and do not change with different
meteorological conditions. Observation points outside the region
between the lower and upper bound may either be incorrect or, if
placed to the left of the upper line, may represent condensation
instead of evaporation. In this way a check of observations is
possible.The upper bound may appreciably deviate from the
defintion of Jackson et al. (1981) given in Eq. (2) if possible errors of
IRT-measurements have to be taken into acount.
The results do not link IRT-measurements directly to stomatal
resistance. The paper rather emphasizes the role of r1 = 1 + rc/ra in
evaluating surface temperatures and, along with this, evaporation
from plants. It is recommended to concentrate henceforth on this
relationship.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to K. Miegel, University of Rostock/
Germany, and H. Jones, University of Dundee/UK, for valuable
comments. He also thanks I. Alves, Instituto Superior de
Agronomia/Lisbon, and A. Pitacco, University of Padova/Italy, for
the data-sets supplied.
Appendix A. Derivation of Eq. (6)
Energy conservation requires that across a specified surface
A  lE þ H (A1)
with A is the (Rn  G) available external energy flux; Rn the net
radiation flux density; G the heat flux density of soil and in the case
of estimating evaporation at canopy level also from plant canopies;
E the evaporation rate = mass flux density of vapor transferred; l
the latent heat of vaporization, varying with Ts; H the convective
(sensible) heat flux density.
The surface will lose mass by evaporation proportional to
esat ðT s Þ  ea
lE ¼ c v (A2)
g ðT s Þr V
with Ts the temperature of evaporating surface; esat the saturation
vapor pressure of the air; ea the actual vapor pressure; cv the
rcp = volumetric heat capacity of (moist) air at constant atmo-
spheric pressure, depending on air temperature Ta, air vapor
pressure ea and atmospheric pressure p (values for cv vary between
approximately 1.14 and 1.28 kJ m3 K1); cp the mass heat
capacity of dry air under constant atmospheric pressure (ca.
1.01 kJ kg1 K1); r the density of (moist) air depending on air
temperature, vapor pressure of the air and total air pressure pa; g
the psychrometric coefficient which varies with Ts, cp and
atmospheric pressure pa; rV the mass transfer resistance for water
vapor.
Heat flux is given by
cv ðT s  T a Þ
H¼ (A3)
rH
229
with rH the resistance to sensible heat transfer.
Inserting (A2) and (A3) into (A1), replacing rH by ra (aerodynamic
resistance) as common in literature (e.g. Jones, 1992) and rV by ra + rc,
following the suggestion of Monteith and Unsworth (1990) (rc = ca-
nopy resistance) gives the energy balance
cv esat ðT s Þ  ea cv
¼ A  ðT s  T a Þ (A4)
ra þ rc g ðT s Þ ra
The terms in Eq. (A4) are re-arranged as shown in the following
steps:
esat ðT s Þ  ea r a þ r c ra þ rc
¼ ðT a  T s Þ þ A
g ðT s Þ ra cv
replacing (ra + rc)/ra by r1 gives
esat ðT s Þ  ea ra
¼ r 1 ðT a  T s Þ þ r 1 A
g ðT s Þ cv
Shifting of terms and dividing both sides by r1 leads to
esat ðT s Þ ra ea
þ Ts ¼ Ta þ A þ (A5)
r 1 g ðT s Þ cv r 1 g ðT s Þ
More details can be found in Widmoser (2009).
References
Allen, R.G., Pruitt, W.O., Wright, J.L., Howell, T.A., Ventura, F., Snyder, R., Itenfisu, D.,
Steduto, P., Berengena, J., Yrisarry, J.B., Smith, M., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Perrier,
A., Alves, I., Walter, I., Elliot, R., 2006. A recommendation on standardized
surface resistance for hourly calculation of reference ETo by the FAO 56 Pen-
man–Monteith method. Agric. Water Manage. 81, 1–22.
Alderfasi, A.A., Nielsen, D.C., 2001. Use of crop water stress index for monitoring
water status and scheduling irrigation in wheat. Agric. Water Manage. 47, 69–
75.
Al-Faraj, A., Meyer, G.E., Horst, G.L., 2001. A crop water stress index for tall fescue
(Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) irrigation decision-making—a fuzzy logic method.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 32, 69–84.
Alves, I., Fontes, J.C., Pereira, L.S., 2000. Evaporation estimates from infrared surface
temperature. I: the performance of the flux equation. Proc. ASEA 43, 591–598.
Alves, I., Pereira, L.S., 2000. Non-water-stressed baselines for irrigation scheduling
with infrared thermometers. Irrig. Sci. 19, 101–106.
Emekli, Y., Bastug, R., Buyuktas, D., Emekli, N.Y., 2007. Evaluation of a crop water
stress index for irrigation scheduling of bermudagrass. Agric. Water Manage.
90, 205–212.
González-Dugo, M.P., Moran, M.S., Mateos, L., Bryant, R., 2006. Canopy temperature
variability as an indicator of crop water stress severity. Irrig. Sci. 24, 233–240.
Idso, S.B., Jackson, R.D., Pinter, P.J., Reginato, R.J., Hatfield, J.L., 1981a. Normalizing
the stress-degree-day parameter for environmental variability. Agric. Meteorol.
24, 45–55.
Idso, S.B., Jackson, R.D., Pinter, P.J., Reginato, R.J., Hatfield, J.L., 1981b. Measuring
yield-reducing plant water potential depression in wheat by infrared thermo-
metry. Irrig. Sci. 2, 205–212.
Idso, S.B., Clawson, K.L., Anderson, M.G., 1986. Foliage temperature’ effects of
environmental factors with implications for plant water stress assessment
and the CO2/climate connection. Water Resour. Res. 22, 1702–1716.
Jackson, R.D., Idso, S.B., Reginato, R.J., Pinter, P.J., 1981. Canopy temperature as a
crop water stress indicator. Water Resour. Res. 17, 1133–1138.
Jones, H.G., 1992. Plants and Microclimate, 2nd ed. University Press, Cambridge.
Jones, H.G., 1999. Use of infrared thermometry for estimation of stomatal con-
ductance as a possible aid to irrigation scheduling. Agric. For. Meteorol. 95, 139–
149.
Kar, G., Kumar, A., 2007. Surface energy fluxes and crop water stress index in
groundnut under irrigated ecosystem. Agric. For. Meteorol. 146, 94–106.
Kimes, D.S., 1983. Remote sensing of row crop structure and component tempera-
tures using directional radiometric temperatures and inversion techniques.
Remote Sens. Environ. 13, 33–55.
Li, L., Nielsen, D.C., Yu, Q., Ma, L., Ahuja, L.R., 2008. Evaluating the crop water stress
index and its correlation with latent heat and CO2 fluxes over winter wheat
and maize in the North China plain. Agric. Water Manage. doi:10.1016/
j.agwat.2008.09.015.
Luquet, D., Vidal, A., Dauzat, J., Bégué, A., Olioso, A., Clouvel, P., 2004. Using
directional TIR measurements and 3D simulations to assess the limitations
and opportunities of water stress indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 90, 53–62.
Mahan, J.R., Burke, J.J., Wanjura, D.F., Upchurch, D.R., 2005. Determination
of temperature and time thresholds for BIOTIC irrigation of peanut on the
Southern high plains of Texas. Irrig. Sci. 23 (4), 145–152.
230 P. Widmoser / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 224–230
Monteith, J.L., 1965. The state and movement of water in living organisms. In:
Proceedings of the XIX Symposium of Society for Experimental Biology, Swan-
sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 205–234.
Monteith, J.L., Unsworth, M.H., 1990. Principles of Environmental Physics, 2nd ed.
Edward Arnold, A division of Hodder & Stoughton, London, N.Y., Melbourne,
Auckland.
Nielsen, D.C., 1994. Non-water stressed baselines for sunflowers. Agric. Water
Manage. 26, 265–276.
Orta, A.H., Erdem, Y., Erdem, T., 2003. Crop water stress index for watermelon. Sci.
Hort. 98, 121–130.
Patel, N.R., Metha, A.N., Shekh, A.M., 2001. Canopy temperature and water stress
quantification in rainfed pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). Agric. For.
Meteorol. 109, 223–232.
Paw, U.K.T., Gao, W., 1988. Applications of solutions to nonlinear energy budget
equations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 43, 121–145.
Paw, U.K.T., 1992. A discussion of the Penman form equations and comparisons of
some equations to estimate latent energy flux density. Agric. For. Meteorol. 57,
297–304.
Payero, J.O., Irmak, O., 2006. Variable upper and lower crop water stress index
baselines for corn and soybean. Irrig. Sci. 25, 21–32.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc.
Roy. Soc., Lond. A 193, 120–146.
Peñuelas, J., Savé, R., Marfà, O., Serrano, L., 1992. Remotely measured canopy
temperature of greenhouse strawberries as indicator of water status and yield
under mild and very mild water stress conditions. Agric. For. Meteorol. 58, 63–77.
Qiu, G.Y., Miyamoto, K., Sase, S., Okushima, L., 2000. Detection of crop transpiration
and water stress by temperature-related approach under field and greenhouse
conditions. Jap. Agric. Res. Quater. 34, 29–37.
Sanchez, J.M., Kustas, W.P., Caselles, C., Anderson, M.C., 2008. Modelling surface
energy fluxes over maize using a two-source patch model and radiometric
soil and canopy temperature observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 1130–
1143.
Shimoda, S., Oikawa, T., 2006. Temporal and spatial variations of canopy tempera-
ture over a C3–C4 mixture grassland. Hydrol. Process. 20, 3503–3516.
Stockle, C.O., Dugas, W.A., 1992. Evaluating canopy temperature-based indices for
irrigation scheduling. Irrig. Sci. 13, 31–37.
Testi, L., Goldhamer, D.A., Iniesta, F., Salinas, M., 2008. Crop water stress index is a
sensitive water stress indicator in pistachio trees. Irrig. Sci. 26, 395–405.
Wanjura, D.F., Upchurch, D.R., Mahan, J.R., 2006. Behavior of temperature-based
water stress indicators in BIOTIC-controlled irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 24, 223–
232.
Wang, L., Qiu, G.Y., Zhang, X., Chen, S., 2005. Application of a new method to
evaluate crop water stress index. Irrig. Sci. 24, 49–54.
Widmoser, P., 2009. A discussion on and alternative to the Penman–Monteith
equation. Agric. Water Manage. 96, 711–721.
Yazar, A., Howell, T.A., Dusek, D.A., Copeland, K.S., 1999. Evaluation of crop water
stress index for LEPA irrigated corn. Irrig. Sci. 18, 171–180.
Yuan, G., Luo, Y., Sun, X., Tang, D., 2004. Evaluation of a crop water stress index for
detecting water stress in winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agric. Water
Manage. 64, 29–40.