干旱区研究

干旱区研究 ›› 2014, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (3): 390-396.

• 生态与环境 • 上一篇    下一篇

参考作物蒸散量计算方法在极端干旱区的适用性

王永东1，邱永志2，许波2，张忠良2，李生宇1   

  • 收稿日期:2012-12-26 修回日期:2013-07-03 出版日期:2014-05-15 发布日期:2014-05-30
  • 作者简介:王永东（1978-），男，助理研究员，博士，研究方向为土壤生态与植物耗水研究.E-mail： wangyd@ms.xjb.ac.cn
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目（41271341，41030530）；中国科学院“西部之光博士专项”（XBBS200908）和中国石油天然气股份有限公司塔里木油田分公司综合项目（971012080007）共同资助

Reference Crop Evapotranspiration in Hinterland of the Taklimakan Desert

WANG Yong-dong1, QIU Yong-zhi2, XU Bo2,ZHANG Zhong-liang2,LI Sheng-yu1   

  1. 1. Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China; 
    2. Tarim Branch, PetroChina Company Limited, Korla 841000, Xinjiang, China
  • Received:2012-12-26 Revised:2013-07-03 Online:2014-05-15 Published:2014-05-30

PDF (PC)

1000

赞

被引次数

14

摘要： 参考作物蒸散量不同计算方法在极端干旱的塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地的适用性鲜有研究。依据塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地收集的2005—2010年的气象资料，以PenmanMonteith为标准，运用8种参考作物蒸散量不同计算方法，探讨在塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地的适用性及计算结果的差异性。结果表明：在极端干旱的塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地，Penman1948、FAO24-Penman、IrmarkAllen、Makkink、PriestleyTaylar计算结果偏小，而FAO Penman修正法计算结果偏大，仅Kimberley Penman和Hargreave与PenmanMonteith的计算结果没有显著差异。 以2004年3—12月气象资料检验Penman1948、FAO24-Penman、IrmarkAllen、Makkink、FAO Penman修正法和PriestleyTayla修正公式，计算结果与PenmanMonteith月偏差仍然较大。偏差较大的原因是3种Penman计算方法均采用了不同的风速修正方法，由风速引起的空气动力项所占的参考作物蒸散量月贡献率不同，而IrmarkAllen、PriestleyTaylar和Makkink 3种方法仅考虑了辐射项，忽略了空气动力项。因此，这6种计算方法在极端干旱的塔克拉玛干沙漠不适用，仅有Kimberley Penman和Hargreave可以适用。

关键词:

Abstract: As a measurement of soilplantationatmosphere transfer system model, the reference crop evapotranspiration ([WTBX]ET0[WTBZ]), which affects the application of models and the precision of prediction, has traditionally been used for understanding water use and water consumption of plant. In order to test the applicability of different methods for hinterland of the Taklimakan Desert, PenmanMonteith method was taken as the standard to calculate the values of [WTBX]ET0[WTBZ] with eight methods of reference crop evapotranspiration at Tazhong Meteorological Station in hinterland of the Taklimakan Desert during the period of 2005-2010. The results showed that the annual [WTBX]ET0[WTBZ] calculated with Penman1948, FAO24-Penman, IrmarkAllen, Makkink and PriestleyTaylar were lower than that calculated with PenmanMonteith method, and that calculated with the modified FAO Penman was slightly higher than that calculated with PenmanMonteith method, and there was no significant difference between the results calculated with the Kimberley Penman, Hargreave and PenmanMonteith methods. The deviation of [WTBX]ET0[WTBZ] calculated with Penman1948, FAO24-Penman, IrmarkAllen, Makkink, Modified FAO Penman and PriestleyTaylar was higher than that calculated with PenmanMonteith method. There was a high deviation because the different modified wind speed formula were used in the calculation with three Penman methods (Penman1948, FAO24-Penman and Modified FAO Penman), and the radioactive term was considered only in the calculation with other three methods (IrmarkAllen, Makkink and PriestleyTaylar), but the aerodynamic term was ignored. Therefore, these six methods (Penman1948, FAO24-Penman, Modified FAO Penman, IrmarkAllen, Makkink and PriestleyTaylar) of [WTBX]ET0[WTBZ] was inapplicable for the extremely arid Taklimakan Desert expect the Kimberley Penman and Hargreave methods.

Key words: