四川省潜在蒸散量估算模型

张顺谦; 马振峰; 张玉芳

四川省潜在蒸散量估算模型

四川省农业气象中心, 成都 610071

资助项目:

四川省应用技术研究与开发项目 2007NGY005

计量
- 摘要浏览量: 4763
- HTML全文浏览量: 825
- PDF下载量: 1750
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2009-03-10
- 修回日期: 2016-01-13
- 刊出日期: 2009-12-31

Estimation Models of Potential Evapotranspiration in Sichuan Province

Agricultural Meteorological Center, Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610071

摘要

摘要: Penman-Monteith法是FAO-56推荐的计算潜在蒸散量的标准方法, 但由于涉及的气象要素较多, 难于在业务中应用。以综合气象干旱指数的业务化应用为目标, 利用1971-2000年四川省156个气象站的观测资料, 以Penman-Monteith法计算结果作为标准,分析了Thornthwaite法和Hargreaves法对川西高原和四川盆地年、月潜在蒸散量的估算精度, 建立了可供业务应用的E_T0估算模型, 并应用于2006年四川省特大伏旱监测, 结果表明:Thornthwaite法反映不出E_T0的年际变化,在冬季显著偏小, 而Hargreaves法对E_T0的年际变化具有较好的反映能力, 与Thornthwaite法相比,其E_T0年、月估算值更接近于Penman-Monteith法标准值,且Hargreaves法估算值与Penman-Monteith法标准值之间具有较好的线性关系,引入风速和相对湿度两个订正因子后,Hargreaves订正值的误差可控制在10%以内, 基于该文E_T0估算模型计算的综合气象干旱指数对四川干旱具有较强的监测能力。
- 四川;
- 潜在蒸散量;
- 精度比较;
- 估算模型
Abstract: Penman-Monteith formula is a standard method recommended by FAO-56 to calculate potential evapotranspiration. But it is difficult to apply in practical operation as not all related meteorological elements can be obtained in reality, so estimation models are used instead. In order to apply compound drought index in operation, Thornthwaite method and Hargreaves method for yearly and monthly potential evapotranspiration of Sichuan Basin and West Sichuan Plateau are studied.The observation data of 156 meteorological stations in Sichuan Province from 1971 to 2000 are investigated including minimum temperature, maximum temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and sunshine hours.Using result of Penman-M onteith form ula as the ET0 standard value, the precisions of the two E_T0 estimation methods are analyzed.Comparing wind speed, relative humidity, Hargreaves method and Penman-Monteith method statistically, an operational Hargreaves method is established. These Hargreaves method and model have been applied to monitor serious summer drought in 2006 in Sichuan Province.The results show: As far as annual variation is concerned, annual value fluctuation estimated by Thornthwaite method is small so that it cannot reflect the E_T0 annual variation. However, Hargreaves method and PM method show basically consistent changing tendency and can reflect the E_T0 annual variation characteristics better. As for the annual mean, result of Thornthwaite method is significantly smaller.The error in the Basin is -10 %--20 % and -40 %--60 % on Plateau.Result of Hargreaves method is relatively smaller in Plateau and larger in Basin.But its error is 10 %-15 %, better than Thornthw aite's. As for the seasonal variation, error of Thornthwaite method is larger in winter but smaller in summer.Due to the influence of relative humidity and wind speed, seasonality of Hargreaves method's error is not obvious. The error of Hargreaves is smaller than that of Thornthwaite especially in Plateau region except for in summer.Results of Penman-Monteith formula and Hargreaves method show good linear relation.With the recovery factors air velocity and relative humidity introduced, the error of Hargreaves correction value can be controlled within 10%. It can meet the demand of practical operation for precision.The compound drought index calculated by this E_T0 estimation model has strong capability for drought monitoring in Sichuan Province.
- Sichuan;
- potential evapotranspiration;
- accuracy comparison;
- estimation model

HTML全文

图 1 PM 法与 Thornthwaite 法和 Hargreaves 法估算的E_T0逐年变化

Fig. 1 E_T0 annual change comparison based on PM, Thornthwaite and Hargreaves

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 PM 法与 Thornthwaite 法和 Hargreaves 法估算的E_T0逐月变化

Fig. 2 E_T0 monthly change comparison based on PM, Thornthwaite and Hargreaves

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 E_{T0_PM}与E_{T0_HG}之间的点聚图

Fig. 3 Poly-point plan between E_{T0_PM} andE_{T0_HG}

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 订正后 E_T0与风速(a)和湿度(b)的关系

Fig. 4 Relationship of revised E_T0 to wind speed(a)and humidity(b), respectively

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 Thornthwaite法和 Hargreaves 法估算误差比较 (单位:%)

Table 1 Estimation error comparison of Thornthwaite and Hargreaves (unit:%)

表 2 E_{T0_PM}与E_{T0_HG}之间的统计关系

Table 2 Statistics relation between E_{T0_PM} and E_{T0_HG}

表 3 订正前后E_{T0_HG}的精度比较

Table 3 Error comparison of E_{T0_HG} before and after revised

表 4 E_T0业务化估算模型及估算精度

Table 4 E_T0 operational model and estimation accuracy

参考文献(19)

[1]	张强, 高歌.我国近50年旱涝灾害时空变化及监测预警服务.科技导报, 2004, 7:21-24. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KJDB200407006.htm
[2]	张顺谦, 侯美亭, 王素艳.基于信息扩散和模糊集方法的四川盆地气候干旱综合评价.自然资源学报, 2008, 23(4):713-723. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZRZX200804018.htm
[3]	Jensen M E, Burman R D, Allen R G. Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, 1990, 70 :332. http://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0067841
[4]	李玉霖, 崔建垣, 张铜.参考作物蒸散量计算方法的比较研究.中国沙漠, 2002, 22(4): 372-376. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGSS200204012.htm
[5]	刘绍民, 孙中平, 李小文, 等.蒸散量测定与估算方法的对比研究.自然资源学报, 2003, 18(2): 161-167. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZRZX200302006.htm
[6]	毛飞, 张光智, 徐祥德.参考作物蒸散量的多种计算方法及其结果的比较.应用气象学报, 2000, 11(增刊): 128-136. http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFD2000&filename=YYQX2000S1016&v=MTA3MzJGaURsVmIvT1BEVGFkckc0SHRHdnJvOUVZb1I4ZVgxTHV4WVM3RGgxVDNxVHJXTTFGckNVUkwyZlpPZG8=
[7]	郭建平, 高素华, 毛飞.中国北方地区干旱化趋势与防御对策研究.自然灾害学报, 2001, 10(3): 32-36. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZRZH200103006.htm
[8]	封志明, 杨艳昭, 丁晓强, 等.甘肃地区参考作物蒸散量时空变化研究.农业工程学报, 2004, 20(1): 99-103. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NYGU200401024.htm
[9]	高歌, 陈德亮, 任国玉, 等.1956~2000年中国潜在蒸散量变化趋势.地理研究, 2006, 25(3): 378-387. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DLYJ200603001.htm
[10]	杨启国, 张旭东, 杨兴国, 等.旱作小麦农田实际蒸散量计算模式研究.干旱地区农业研究, 2005, 23(1):34-38. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GHDQ200501006.htm
[11]	吕厚荃, 钱拴, 杨霏云, 等.华北地区玉米田实际蒸散量的计算.应用气象学报, 2003, 14(6): 722-728. http://qikan.camscma.cn/jams/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20030691&flag=1
[12]	马晓群, 张辉.近30年安徽省地表干湿时空变化及对农业影响.应用气象学报, 2007, 18(6):783-790. http://qikan.camscma.cn/jams/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=200706120&flag=1
[13]	王新华, 郭美华, 徐中民.分别利用Hargreaves和PM公式计算西北干旱区ET 0的比较.农业工程学报, 2006, 22(10): 21-25. http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFD2006&filename=NYGU200610004&v=MDY0NjlPZG9GaURsV3J2SUt6VE1lN0c0SHRmTnI0OUZZSVI4ZVgxTHV4WVM3RGgxVDNxVHJXTTFGckNVUkwyZlo=
[14]	丁加丽, 彭世彰, 徐俊增, 等.基于温度资料的参考作物蒸发蒸腾量计算方法.河海大学学报 (自然科学版), 2007, 35 (6): 633-637. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HHDX200706006.htm
[15]	刘晓英, 李玉中, 王庆锁.几种基于温度的参考作物蒸散量计算方法的评价.农业工程学报, 2006, 22(6): 12-18. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NYGU200606002.htm
[16]	范丽萍, 贾忠华, 罗纨, 等.西安地区Priestley-Taylor和Hargreaves方法应用比较.水资源与水工程学报, 2007, 18(2): 53-57. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XBSZ200702012.htm
[17]	Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. Crop Evapotran spiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements FAO Irrigation and Drainage. Paper No.56 (Electric Publication). Rome:FAO, 1998.
[18]	Thornthwaite C W. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographic Review, 1948, 38 : 55-94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/210739?origin=crossref
[19]	Hargreaves G H, Samani Z A. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1985, 1(2):96-99. doi: 10.13031/2013.26773