黄河三角洲参考作物腾发量计算方法适宜性研究

尹春艳; 陈小兵; 刘 虎; 单晶晶; 卜凡敏; 王 德; 孙海栓

引用本文:	尹春艳,陈小兵,刘虎,等.黄河三角洲参考作物腾发量计算方法适宜性研究[J].灌溉排水学报,2017,36(6):.
	YIN Chunyan,CHEN Xiaobing,LIU Hu,et al.黄河三角洲参考作物腾发量计算方法适宜性研究[J].灌溉排水学报,2017,36(6):.

【打印本页】【下载PDF全文】【查看/发表评论】【EndNote】【RefMan】【BibTex】

←前一篇|后一篇→

过刊浏览高级检索

本文已被：浏览 2673次下载 0次
分享到：微信更多字体:加大+\|默认\|缩小-
黄河三角洲参考作物腾发量计算方法适宜性研究
尹春艳，陈小兵，刘虎，单晶晶，卜凡敏，王德，孙海栓
中国科学院海岸带环境过程与生态修复重点实验室（烟台海岸带研究所），山东烟台 264003；中国科学院大学，北京 100049； 3.水利部牧区水利科学研究所，呼和浩特 010020；中国科学院海岸带研究所，山东烟台264003； 5.山东省滨海盐碱地水土环境工程技术研究中心，山东东营 257000； 6.山东省汇邦渤海农业开发有限公司，山东东营 257091

摘要:

准确估算各地区的参考作物腾发量（ET0）是农业灌溉设计和节水规划中必不可少的内容。利用黄河三角洲地区4个典型气候区的气象资料，选用5种计算方法（P-M，FAO-79Penman、Priestley-Taylor，FAO-24Penman和Hargreaves-Samani）计算了ET0，并以P-M方法作为标准，对其他方法进行了评价。结果表明，在黄河三角洲各气候区FAO-Penman法估算的ET0较Priestley-Taylor方法更接近于P-M法的计算结果，并且计算精度较高，误差在3%～10%之间。在缺少资料的湿润区，用Priestley-Taylor方法可以得到与P-M法估值相近的结果。

关键词: 参考作物腾发量； P-M法；黄河三角洲； Priestley-Taylor方法

DOI：

分类号:

基金项目:

Comparison of Different Methods for Calculating Evapotranspiration of Crops in the Yellow River Delta

YIN Chunyan, CHEN Xiaobing, LIU Hu, SHAN Jingjing, BU Fanmin, WANG De, SUN Haishuang

Key Laboratory of Coastal Zone Environmental Processes and Ecological Remediation, Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai 264003, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China; Institute of Water Resources for Pastoral Area Ministry of Water Resources, Hohhot 010020, China； Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai 264003, China; Shandong Coastal Saline Soil and Water Environmental Engineering Research Center, Dongying 257000, China; Shandong Huibangbohai Agriculture Development Limited Company, Dongying 257091, China

Abstract:

Accurately calculating crop evapotranspiration (ET0) is important in designing water-saving irrigation schedule. This paper compared five methods: the P-M method，FAO-79Penman，Priestley-Taylor, FAO-24Penman and Hargreaves-Samani, for calculating evapotranspiration of crops in the Yellow River delta using data measured at four weather stations in the region. We took the P-M method as the control to to evaluate the other methods. The results showed that the FAO-Penman was more accurate than Priestley-Taylor in all climatic regions, with errors between 3% and 10%. If there are no sufficient data in humid regions, however, the Priestley-Taylor works better giving more reliable ET0 estimates.

Key words: reference evapotranspiration; P-M method; the Yellow River delta; Priestley-Taylor method