@article{FahleDietrich2014,
  author    = {Fahle, Marcus and Dietrich, Ottfried},
  title     = {Estimation of evapotranspiration using diurnal groundwater level fluctuations: Comparison of different approaches with groundwater lysimeter data},
  series = {Water resources research},
  volume    = {50},
  journal   = {Water resources research},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {American Geophysical Union},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0043-1397},
  doi       = {10.1002/2013WR014472},
  pages     = {273 -- 286},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {In wetlands or riparian areas, water withdrawal by plants with access to groundwater or the capillary fringe often causes diurnal groundwater fluctuations. Various approaches use the characteristics of these fluctuations for estimation of daily groundwater evapotranspiration rates. The objective of this paper was to review the available methods, compare them with measured evapotranspiration and assess their recharge assumptions. For this purpose, we employed data of 85 rain-free days of a weighable groundwater lysimeter situated at a grassland site in the Spreewald wetland in north-east Germany. Measurements of hourly recharge and daily evapotranspiration rates were used to assess the different approaches. Our results showed that a maximum of 50\% of the day to day variance of the daily evapotranspiration rates could be explained by the approaches based on groundwater fluctuations. Simple and more complex methods performed similarly. For some of the approaches, there were indications that erroneous assumptions compensated each other (e.g., when overestimated recharge counteracted underestimated storage change). We found that the usage of longer time spans resulted in improved estimates of the daily recharge rates and that the estimates were further enhanced by including two night averages. When derived from fitting estimates of recharge or evapotranspiration with according measurements the specific yield, needed to convert changes in water level to water volumes, differed considerably among the methods (from 0.022 to 0.064). Thus, the specific yield can be seen as correction factor that compensates for inadequate process descriptions.},
  language  = {en}
}