Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · pp686A

Comparison of evaporation computation methods, Pretty Lake, Lagrange County, northeastern Indiana

Abstract

Evaporation from Pretty Lake has been computed for a 2%- year period between 1963 and 1965 by the use of an energy budget, mass-transfer parameters, a water budget, a class-A pan, and a computed pan evaporation technique. The seasonal totals for the different methods are within 8 percent of their mean and are within 11 percent of the rate of 79 centimeters (31 inches) per year determined from published maps that are based on evaporation-pan data. Period-by-period differences among the methods are larger than the annual differences, but there is a general agreement among the evaporation hydrographs produced by the different computation methods. The energy budget was an excellent means of computing unbiased evaporation data for periods of a month or longer from June through September. It is not reliable in the springtime, when Bowen ratios are large and when the large changes in stored energy may be hard to measure accurately owing to errors in the capacity table. The need for sophisticated equipment, frequent temperature surveys, and complex computations makes the energy budget the most expensive of the several methods used. Effective use was made of the Koberg method in estimating long-wave radiation when accurate instrument records were not available. Effects of sediment heating and cooling were computed to have influenced evaporation as much as 0.03 cm day" 1 (centimeters per day) just after the autumnal overturn. The change is significant during the fall, when the evaporation for Pretty Lake is low, and would be more significant in a shallow lake, where the heat storage by the sediment would be large in proportion to the storage by the water. The corrected fall in stage computed by the water-budget method agreed well with the evaporation rates computed by other methods during the dryer seasons. Decreased rates of fall in stage during the wet seasons indicated net inflow seepage that was estimated to be equivalent to a stage change of more than 0.2 cm day" 1 at some times. Evaporation data based upon class-A pan records and computed pan evaporation were too large early in the season and too small late in the season. The differences were caused by energy storage, which affected the lake evaporation as energy was stored in the spring and released late in the season. Energy-storage effects can be corrected, but the corrections require some of the same expensive data that were used in the energy budget. The mass-transfer system proved to be an effective low-cost means of computing evaporation, a means that is well suited to low evaporation rates. The mass-transfer coefficient was determined to be 0.00560 cm hr day- 1 mile" 1 mb" 1 (centimeter per day per millibar per mile/hour), the relative standard error of the energy-budget calibration being about 6 percent. Springtime and autumn evaporation rates computed by the mass-transfer method were slightly higher than rates computed by other methods, and summer rates from mass-transfer computations were slightly lower than rates computed by other methods. Anemometer stalling is believed to have caused unreliable mass-transfer evaporation data during two periods having very low wind velocities. Assuming that Pretty Lake is typical of the many small natural lakes in its region, it is concluded that in most cases the evaporation information needed for hydrologic studies can be provided with satisfactory accuracy by a combination of the mass-transfer method and one or two other methods, without the expense of a complex energy-budget study. The different methods, although poor, agree that evaporation when there is ice cover is generally small (less than 0.1 cm day" 1 ), but the evaporation rates during the few days just before freezeup or just after ice breakup are significant

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 41.5251° to 41.7608° latitude; -85.6606° to -85.1947° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John F. Ficke. 1972. Comparison of evaporation computation methods, Pretty Lake, Lagrange County, northeastern Indiana. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp686a

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗