文章摘要
汪 彪,曾新民,黄 旭,刘赛赛,于丰玮,陈伟伟.乌鲁木齐参考作物蒸散量计算方法的比较Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering[J].,2013,24(4):15-19,24
乌鲁木齐参考作物蒸散量计算方法的比较
Comparison of calculation method of reference crop evapotranspiration in Urumqi
Received:March 26, 2013  Revised:April 28, 2013
DOI:10.11705/j.issn.1672-643X.2013.04.004
中文关键词: 参考作物蒸发蒸腾量(ET0)  FAO-Penman-Monteith方法  Hargreaves方法  Priestley-Taylor方法  FAO-17Penman方法
英文关键词: reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0)  FAO-Penman-Monteith method  Hargreaves method  Priestley-Taylor method  FAO-17Penman method
基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(41275012)
Author NameAffiliation
WANG Biao College of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211101,China 
ZENG Xinmin College of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211101,China 
HUANG Xu College of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211101,China 
LIU Saisai College of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211101,China 
YU Fengwei College of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211101,China 
CHEN Weiwei No.96617Army of PLA, Luzhou 646100, China [KH*3D] 
Hits: 2145
Download times: 1265
中文摘要:
      以Penman-Monteith方法为标准,利用Hargreaves方法,Priestley-Taylor方法和FAO-17Penman方法计算乌鲁木齐的参考作物蒸散量ET0 (Reference Crop Evapotranspiration),对计算结果分别作了对比分析,并对不同的方法进行相应的修正。结果表明:(1)乌鲁木齐的ET0季节分布极不均匀,表现出夏季、春季、秋季、冬季依次减小的趋势;(2)总的来说,PT和HG方法的估算值比PM的标准值要偏低,F17方法的估算值比PM方法的标准值要偏高,造成不同方法的估算偏差的主要原因是由于各自选用了不同的辐射项和动力项所致;(3)在气象资料缺乏、精度要求不高的时候,PT方法能够用来计算乌鲁木齐的ET0,如果精度要求较高,可以使用修正后的公式;(4)修正后的HG公式计算结果最接近PM方法的标准计算结果,如果使用HG方法估算乌鲁木齐的ET0,必须先进行修正;(5)F17方法采用了与PM方法不同的风速修正方案,修正前后的误差都较大,不适用于乌鲁木齐ET0的计算。上述方法在其它地区的适用性有待进一步检验。
英文摘要:
      Based on the FAO-Penman-Monteith method, used the Hargreaves method, the Priestley-Taylor method, and the FAO-17Penman method, this paper calculated the reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) of Urumqi in Xinjiang. The results were compared and analyzed, and different methods were revised. The results showed that (1) the seasonal distribution of ET0 is extremely uneven which has a decrease trend from summer,spring, autumn and winter successively; (2) in general, the estimated values of PT method and HG method are lower than the standard values of PM method, the values of F17are higher than the standard values of PM method,the main reason for the deviation is caused by different radiation and dynamic items in different methods; (3) when there is short of meteorological data or the precision demand is not very high, the PT method can be used to calculate the ET0 of Urumqi, if the precision demand is high, the revised PT method will be used to estimate the ET0; (4) the calculation result by the revised HG method is most consistent with the estimation by the standard PM method, and it must be revised before estimating ET0 for Urumqi by application of the HG method; (5) the F17method and the PM method adopts different revised schemes of wind velocity, witch results in a large deviation and unsuitable for ET0 estimation of Urumqi.
View Full Text   View/Add Comment  Download reader
Close
function PdfOpen(url){ var win="toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=yes,menubar=yes,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes"; window.open(url,"",win); } function openWin(url,w,h){ var win="toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=no,width=" + w + ",height=" + h; controlWindow=window.open(url,"",win); } &et=8C10CEA789A144B87E0425A4860A20A3D939F7F3C0419F8848077FB8FE01E731495A825C5902DB9B2014BD044E353A339E97746F8946665775AA0E64FF8A6A4E2DD3B59F6538AF130D52132206A7A291&pcid=5B3AB970F71A803DEACDC0559115BFCF0A068CD97DD29835&cid=3ECA06F115476E3F&jid=BC473CEDCB8CE70D7B12BDD8EA00FF44&yid=FF7AA908D58E97FA&aid=0BF38A66806035742626D5FF75A41BA0&vid=&iid=E158A972A605785F&sid=23CCDDCD68FFCC2F&eid=BF649282C2037B92&fileno=20130404&flag=1&is_more=0">