Evapotranspira tion

Preston, G.M. and McBride, R.A., Assessing the use of poplar tree systems as a landfill evapotranspira-tion barrier with the SHAW model, Waste Management and Research, 22 (4), 291-305, 2004. 

The complete range of Etvalues spans from about 50% in cold rainy regions to 0.5% in warm zones. Large variations are also observed within each climatic zone as a function of topography and the type of local soil or exposed rock, causing different extents of water retardation at or near the surface, resulting, in turn, in different intensities of evapotranspira-tion-induced water losses into the atmosphere. 

Magaritz M., Kaufman A., Paul M., Boaretto E., and Hollos G. (1990) A new method to determine regional evapotranspira-tion. Water Resour. Res. 26, 1759—1762. 

For seedling-soil-cup systems water utilization was expressed as evapotranspira-tion since evaporation from the soil and the transpiration of seedlings could not be separated. Evapotranspiration of seedling-soil-cup system was determined by the decline in system weight over time and assuming that a 1 g decline over a given period for a system equaled 1 ml of water evapotranspired (Blum and Gerig 2006). 

In sum, there are four major sources of soluble salts in river basins (i) meteoric salts (ii) salts derived from water-rock interaction (e.g., dissolution of evaporitic rocks) (iii) salts derived from remnants of formation water entrapped in the basin and (iv) anthropogenic salts (e.g., waste-water effluents). Meteoric salts are concentrated via in-stream net evaporation and evapotranspira-tion along the river flow. In addition, meteoric salts can be recycled through irrigation in the watershed and development of saline agriculmral drainage water that flows to the river. 

---