千烟洲森林生态系统蒸散发模拟模型的适用性

doi:10.11983/CBB15055

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 基于2003-2007年千烟洲涡度相关通量塔观测的气象数据和蒸散发数据, 评价了常用的蒸散发模型模拟森林生态系统蒸散发的适用性, 包括Priestly-Taylor、Blaney-Criddle、Hargreaves-Samani、Jensen-Haise、Hamon、Turc、Makkink和Thornthwaite模型。结果表明, 日尺度上Priestly-Taylor模型的模拟效果较好, 相关系数达0.953; 月尺度上Makkink模型的模拟效果较好, 相关系数达0.995; 而Thornthwaite模型在月尺度上模拟误差较大, 均方根误差与平均偏差分别为15.559和13.436; Jensen-Haise模型在日、月尺度上模拟效果均较差。采用偏相关法分析气象因子与蒸散发值的关系, 得出森林生态系统蒸散发驱动因子的贡献排序为: 辐射>温度>水气压>风速>土壤温度>相对湿度>白天时长, 即辐射对蒸散发的影响较为显著, 与基于辐射法的Priestly-Taylor和Makkink模型分别在日、月尺度上适用性较好的结论一致。

关键词: 涡度相关, 蒸散发, 森林生态系统, 千烟洲

Abstract: Using meteorological and evapotranspiration (ET) data acquired at the Eddy Covariance Flux tower in Qian- yanzhou, Jiangxi Province, for 2003 to 2007, we evaluated the applicability of 8 widely used evapotranspiration simulation models (Priestly-Taylor, Blaney-Criddle, Hargreaves-Samani, Jensen-Haise, Hamon, Turc, Makkink and Thornthwaite) for a forest ecosystem. Among these 8 models, the Priestly-Taylor model was the best (R=0.953) on a daily time scale, the Makkink model was the best (R=0.995) on a monthly scale, and the Thornthwaite model was the worst on a monthly scale (RMSE=15.559, MBE=13.436). The Jensen-Haise model failed in simulation of ET on both day and month scales. Partial correlation analysis of simulated ET against meteorological factors showed that the order of factors contributing to ET for the forest ecosystem was radiation>air temperature>surface pressure>wind speed>soil temperature>relative humidity>daytime length. Radiation was the most important driving factor for ET, which is consistent with the performance of radiation-based ET models (e.g., the Priestly-Taylor and Makkink models) being better than other models.

Key words: eddy covariance, evapotranspiration, forest ecosystem, Qianyanzhou

刘莹, 陈报章, 陈婧, 许光. 千烟洲森林生态系统蒸散发模拟模型的适用性. 植物学报, 2016, 51(2): 226-234.

Ying Liu, Baozhang Chen, Jing Chen, Guang Xu. Applicability of Evapotranspiration Simulation Models for Forest Ecosystems in Qianyanzhou. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2016, 51(2): 226-234.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.chinbullbotany.com/CN/10.11983/CBB15055

https://www.chinbullbotany.com/CN/Y2016/V51/I2/226

图/表 9

表1 2003-2007年按能量守恒原则筛选的数据可用量区间

Table 1 Available quantity of data for 2003-2007 based on the principle of conservation energy

Year	Screening interval (%)
	0.2-1.8	0.3-1.7	0.4-1.6	0.5-1.5	0.6-1.4
2003	62.23	58.19	53.69	47.93	41.13
2004	64.88	60.73	55.70	49.72	42.61
2005	38.34	34.02	29.44	24.76	20.01
2006	51.16	45.75	40.35	34.44	28.12
2007	60.33	55.88	50.45	44.19	37.65

表2 采用最小二乘法计算模型参数α值及其标准差(Sd)、均值(Mean)和变异系数(CV)

Table 2 Model parameter (α), standard deviation (Sd), mean and coefficient variation (CV) using the least square method

Month	Models
	P-T	B-C	H-S	J-H	Ham	Tu	Ma	Th
1	1.213	0.353	0.003	2.151	0.078	0.022	0.550	8.113
2	0.991	0.350	0.003	1.225	0.068	0.019	0.520	8.113
3	0.888	0.381	0.003	0.998	0.070	0.018	0.482	8.113
4	0.790	0.415	0.003	0.901	0.070	0.020	0.546	8.113
5	0.863	0.499	0.003	0.931	0.077	0.024	0.668	8.113
6	0.872	0.526	0.003	0.914	0.076	0.026	0.707	8.113
7	0.932	0.606	0.004	0.995	0.080	0.031	0.862	0.940
8	0.883	0.561	0.004	0.993	0.077	0.029	0.816	0.940
9	0.886	0.526	0.004	1.073	0.080	0.025	0.722	8.113
10	0.929	0.407	0.003	1.072	0.068	0.021	0.625	8.113
11	1.072	0.357	0.003	1.248	0.065	0.020	0.604	8.113
12	1.204	0.357	0.003	2.069	0.076	0.020	0.561	8.113
Sd	0.1353	0.0928	0.0004	0.4329	0.0051	0.0042	0.1192	2.792
Mean	0.9602	0.4448	0.0031	1.2142	0.0737	0.0230	0.6385	6.917
CV (%)	14.089	20.874	13.547	35.653	6.948	18.254	18.671	40.363

图1 观测值与模拟值多年日均变化对比 (A)-(G) 分别为P-T、B-C、H-S、J-H、Ham、Tu和Ma模型的拟合图像。横坐标表示观察值; 纵坐标表示模型模拟值, R2为拟合优度。

Figure 1 Daily evapotrans piration (ET) observation and ET simulation on average of years (A)-(G) The fitting prctures of P-T, B-C, H-S, J-H, Ham, Tu and Ma model, respectively. Abscissa represents observation; Ordinate represents simulation; R2 represents goodness of fit.

表3 日均观测值与模拟值的相关性分析

Table 3 Correlation analysis of daily evapotranspiration (ET) observation and ET simulation on average

Model	RMSE	MBE	R
P-T	0.456	0.355	0.953**
B-C	0.458	0.342	0.917**
H-S	0.453	0.343	0.927**
J-H	0.512	0.399	0.911**
Ham	0.439	0.332	0.925**
Tu	0.476	0.362	0.910**
Ma	0.467	0.348	0.913**

表4 蒸散发观测值与模拟值的多年月变化(mm·m-1)

Table 4 Monthly change of evapotranspiration (ET) observation and ET simulation of years (mm·m-1)

Coefficient	Obs	Model
		P-T	B-C	H-S	J-H	Ham	Tu	Ma	Th
Sd	33.337	34.987	33.174	34.383	36.171	33.158	33.962	33.165	48.385
Mean	68.045	65.514	66.629	64.011	63.319	65.891	66.078	66.701	64.885
CV (%)	48.992	57.858	49.790	53.714	57.125	50.322	51.397	49.722	74.570

图2 观测值与模拟值多年月均蒸散发关系对比 (A) 观测值与P-T模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (B) 观测值与B-C模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (C) 观测值与H-S模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (D) 观测值与J-H模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (E) 观测值与Ham模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (F) 观测值与Tu模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (G) 观测值与Ma模型模拟值月蒸散发变化; (H) 观测值与Th模型模拟值月蒸散发变化

Figure 2 Comparison of monthly evapotranspiration (ET) observation and ET simulation of years on average (A) The picture of monthly variation between observation and P-T model simulation; (B) The picture of monthly variation between observation and B-C model simulation; (C) The picture of monthly variation between observation and H-S model simulation; (D) The picture of monthly variation between observation and J-H model simulation; (E) The picture of monthly variation between observation and Ham model simulation; (F) The picture of monthly variation between observation and Tu model simulation; (G) The picture of monthly variation between observation and Ma model simulation; (H) The picture of monthly variation between observation and Th model simulation

表5 模拟值与观测值多年月均蒸散发关系

Table 5 Monthly evapotranspiration (ET) observation and ET simulation on average of years

Model	RMSE	MBE	R
P-T	6.337	5.621	0.994**
B-C	3.752	3.179	0.994**
H-S	6.198	5.685	0.990**
J-H	7.203	6.306	0.990**
Ham	4.468	3.881	0.992**
Tu	3.931	3.632	0.995**
Ma	3.495	2.999	0.995**
Th	15.559	13.436	0.992**

表6 气象因子与观测值的关系(R)

Table 6 Correlation coefficient (R) of meteorological factor and evapotranspiration (ET) observation under Person correlation test

	R_n	T_s	T_a	RH	W_s	P_vapor	R_ainfall	n
R	0.951**	0.877**	0.900**	-0.326**	0.371**	0.891**	0.061	0.799**

表7 气象因子与观测值偏相关分析(R)

Table 7 Correlation coefficient of meteorological factor and evapotranspiration (ET) observation under partial correlation analysis

	R_n	T_s	T_a	RH	W_s	P_vapor	n
R	0.733**	0.300**	-0.412**	-0.206**	0.308**	0.334**	-0.24

参考文献 24

[1]	程根伟, 余新晓, 赵玉涛, 周杨明, 罗辑 (2003). 贡嘎山亚高山森林带蒸散特征模拟研究. 北京林业大学学报 25(1), 23-27.
[2]	杜加强, 熊珊珊, 刘成程, 郭杨, 舒俭民, 张林波 (2013). 黄河上游地区几种参考作物蒸散量计算方法的适用性比较. 干旱区地理 36, 831-840.
[3]	胡兴波, 芦新建, 董梅, 连利叶, 贺康宁 (2013). 简化参照作物蒸散量(ET₀)计算公式在青海省高寒区的适用性分析. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版) 41(11),201-208.
[4]	李菲菲, 饶良懿, 吕琨珑, 李会杰, 宋丹丹 (2012). Priestley- Taylor模型参数修正及在蒸散发估算中的应用. 浙江农林大学学报 30, 748-754.
[5]	李玉霖, 崔建垣, 张铜会 (2002). 参考作物蒸散量计算方法的比较研究. 中国沙漠 22, 372-376.
[6]	王昊, 许士国, 孙砳石 (2007). 扎龙湿地参照作物蒸散发估算的经验模型. 水科学进展 18, 246-251.
[7]	王梅, 王建波 (2005). 森林内气象因素和蒸散发的观测实验. 黑龙江水专学报 32(2), 21-22, 25.
[8]	杨贵军, 黄文江, 王纪华, 邢著荣 (2010). 多源多角度遥感数据反演森林叶面积指数方法. 植物学报 45, 566-578. DOI
[9]	张晓琳, 熊立华, 林琳, 龙海峰 (2012). 五种潜在蒸散发公式在汉江流域的应用. 干旱区地理 35, 229-237.
[10]	Allen RG, Pereira LS, Dirk R, Martin S (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration:Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. Rome: Natural Resources Management and Environment Press. pp. 56.
[11]	Blaney HF, Criddle WD (1962). Determining consumptive use and irrigation water requirements. Technical Bull 25, 369-373.
[12]	Bonan GB (2008). Ecological Climatology:Concepts and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 31.
[13]	Chen B, Ge Q, Fu D, Yu G, Sun X, Wang S, Wang H (2010). A data-model fusion approach for upscaling gross ecosystem productivity to the landscape scale based on remote sensing and flux footprint modelling. Biogeo- sciences 7, 2943-2958.
[14]	Chen J, Chen BZ, Black TA, Innes JL, Wang GY, Kiely G, Hirano T, Wohlfahrt G (2013). Comparison of terres- trial evapotranspiration estimates using the mass transfer and Penman-Monteith equations in land surface models. J Geophys Res 118, 1715-1731.
[15]	Douglas E, Jennifer MJ, Summer DS, Ram LR (2009). A comparison of models for estimating potential evapo- transpiration for Florida land cover types. J Hydrol 373, 366-376.
[16]	Fisher JB, Whittaker RJ, Malhi Y (2011). ET come home: potential evapotranspiration in geographical ecology. Global Ecol Biogeogr 20, 1-18.
[17]	Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA (1985). Reference crop evapo- transpiration from temperature. Appl Eng Agric 1, 96-99.
[18]	Lu JB, Sun G, Mcnulty SG, Amatya DM (2005). A com- parison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern US. J Am Water Works Assn 41, 621-633.
[19]	Loukas A, Vasiliades L, Domenikiotis C, Dalezios NR (2005). Basin-wide actual evapotranspiration estimation using NOAA/AVHRR satellite data. Phys Chem Earth 30, 69-79.
[20]	Pereira AR, Pruitt WO (2004). Adaptation of the Thorn- thwaite scheme for estimating daily reference evapora- tion. Agr Water Manage 66, 251-257.
[21]	Priestly CHB, Taylor RJ (1972). On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100(2), 81-92.
[22]	Trajkovic S, Kolakovic S (2009). Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations under humid conditions. Water Resour Manag 23, 3057-3067.
[23]	Xu CY, Singh VP (2005). Evaluation of three compl- ementary relationship evapotranspiration models by water balance approach to estimate actual regional evapo- transpiration in different climatic regions. J Hydrol 308, 105-121.
[24]	Zha TS, Barr AG, van der Kamp G, Black TA, McCaughey JH, Flanagan LB (2010). Interannual variation of evapo- transpiration from forest and grassland ecosystems in western Canada in relation to drought. Agric For Meteorol 150, 1476-1484.