| 引用本文: | 殷昌军,桂东伟,刘云飞, 等.新疆地区潜在蒸散量计算模型适用性评价[J].灌溉排水学报,2022,41(2):75-82. |
| YIN Changjun,GUI Dongwei,LIU Yunfei, et al..新疆地区潜在蒸散量计算模型适用性评价[J].灌溉排水学报,2022,41(2):75-82. |
|
| 摘要: |
| 【目的】评价不同潜在蒸散量模型计算结果的准确性以及模型在不同地区的适用性，提出适合于新疆不同区域的潜在蒸散量计算模型。【方法】基于新疆16个站点1970—2015年的实测气象资料，以实测蒸发为基准，采用综合法、辐射法、质量传输法、温度法4类模型计算了潜在蒸散量；通过随机森林模型分析了潜在蒸散量的主要影响因素，并利用多属性决策方法TOPSIS法从模型计算精度与敏感性对不同地区所有的计算模型进行适用性排序。【结果】在全疆范围内，辐射法计算的多年潜在蒸散发量明显比综合法、质量传输法和温度法更接近标准值，其中Makkink模型适用范围最广，计算结果最好。其在各站点中的计算值与标准值的相关系数均在0.95以上，纳什效率系数接近于1，均方根误差在各站点均值为25.28 mm/month；净辐射量和气温为新疆地区蒸发量的主要影响因素。【结论】在南疆地区，辐射法中的Makkink模型与综合法Penman-Monteith（P-M）模型适用性最好，Priestley-Taylor（P-T）、Hargreaves(Harg)等辐射法次之，温度法最不适用；在北疆地区，辐射法适用性最佳，Penman模型和Penman-Monteith（P-M）模型次之，Hamon和Mc Cloud模型最不适用。 |
| 关键词: 潜在蒸散量；模型；敏感性分析；TOPSIS |
| DOI：10.13522/j.cnki.ggps. 2021282 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Assessing Different Formulae for Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration in Xinjiang |
|
YIN Changjun, GUI Dongwei, LIU Yunfei, et al.
|
|
1. State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China; 2.Cele National Station of Observation and Research for Desert-Grassland Ecosystems,
Cele 848300, China; 3.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
|
| Abstract: |
| 【Objective】Potential evapotranspiration (ET) is an important parameter for irrigation management and can be calculated by different methods. In this paper we evaluate different methods for estimating ET in Xinjiang province of China.【Method】The analysis was based on meteorological data measured from 1970 to 2015 from 16 whether stations across the province. The value of ET was calculated by the following models: comprehensive method, radiation method, mass transfer method and temperature method. The technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was used to rank applicability and suitability of these models for different regions based on their accuracy and sensitivity.【Result】On average across Xinjiang, ET calculated by the radiation method was closer to the standard value than by other models. Among all models we compared, the Makkink model was more applicable, giving most accurate result across the province, with its correlation coefficient with the standard value for all 16 weather station being more than 0.95, the associated NSE close to 1 and average root mean square errors over the 16 stations being 25.28 mm/month.【Conclusion】 In southern Xinjiang, the Makkink model and the Penman-Monteith model are most accurate, followed by Priestley-Taylor (P-T), Hargreaves (Harg) and temperature method. In northern Xinjiang, the radiation method worked better, followed by the Penman and the Penman-Monteith models. |
| Key words: potential evapotranspiration; sensitivity analysis; TOPSIS; Xinjiang |
