PDF Download HTML

]" id="html" rel="external">HTML

[1]LI Xia,LIU Tingxi,DUAN Limin,et al.Estimation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration and Analysis of Impact Factors in Horqin Sandy Land[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2020,27(06):153-159.

Copy

Estimation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration and Analysis of Impact Factors in Horqin Sandy Land

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 27 Number of periods: 2020 06 Page number: 153-159 Column: 目次 Public date: 2020-10-20

Title:: Estimation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration and Analysis of Impact Factors in Horqin Sandy Land

Author(s):: LI Xia¹, LIU Tingxi^1,2, DUAN Limin^1,2, WANG Guanli^1,2, ZHOU Yajun¹; (1.Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering College, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China; 2.Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Water Resource Protection and Utilization, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China)

Keywords:: reference crop evapotranspiration; Penman-Monteith model; path analysis; Horqin sandy land

CLC:: P426.2

DOI:: -

Abstract:: In order to accurately assess the regional climate condition and protect the ecological environment in semi-arid areas, based on the daily meteorological data of five typical landscape types including meadow land, semi-mobile sand dune, semi-fixed sand dune, rice and maize land from 2015 to 2018 in Horqin area, reference crop evapotranspiration(ET₀)was calculated by using FAO56 Penman-Monteith model. Changes in ET₀ on different time scales was analyzed, and then causes of ET₀ changes were analyzed through path analysis and index sensitivity analysis. The results showed that:(1)the 4-year average ET₀ was 1 051 mm, the annual value of ET₀ fluctuated between 922 mm and 1 257 mm at different sample plots, and the maximum value appeared in 2017;(2)the seasonal change of ET₀ decreased in the order: summer>spring>autumn>winter;(3)inter-monthly changes of ET₀were parabolic, with the largest contribution from March to October and accounting for more than 80% of ET₀ in the whole year;(4)In path analysis, the path coefficients of meteorological factors to ET₀ decreased in the order: VPD>Rn>u₂>T_max, and the maximum direct action coefficient was 0.614. indicating that VPD was the most important factor to affecting ET₀, T_max had the largest indirect effect on ET₀, and the indirect action coefficient was 0.936, and it mainly affected ET₀ through VPD path, and the indirect action coefficient was 0.554; in the index sensitivity analysis, E decreased from 0.993 to 0.877 after removing VPD, which further indicated that ET₀ was the most sensitive to the change of VPD. In general, VPD was the main factor for evapotranspiration in Horqin sandy land.

References:: [1] 曹雯,段春锋,姚筠,等.1961—2010年安徽省参考作物蒸散时空变化特征及成因[J].应用生态学报,2014,25(12):3619-3626.
[2] 曹永强,肖春柳,李元菲,等.河北省春季潜在蒸散量变化特征与成因[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(5):195-201,209.
[3] 刘昌明,孙睿.水循环的生态学方面:土壤—植被—大气系统水分能量平衡研究进展[J].水科学进展,1999(3):251-259.
[4] 吕明权,张磊,吴胜军.嘉陵江流域参考蒸散的年际变化趋势及成因分析[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(3):77-85.
[5] 冯禹,崔宁博,魏新平,等.川中丘陵区参考作物蒸散量时空变化特征与成因分析[J].农业工程学报,2014,30(14):78-86,339.
[6] 娄忠秋,李桢.不同简化算法模型模拟都江堰灌区参考作物蒸散量[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(5):272-277,286.
[7] Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements[R]. Rome: FAO,1998.
[8] Mcvicar T R, Roderick M L, Donohue R J, et al. Global review and synthesis of trends in observed terrestrial near-surface wind speeds: Implications for evaporation[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2012,416/417:182-205.
[9] Um M J, Kim Y, Park D. Spatial and temporal variations in reference crop evapotranspiration in a mountainous island, Jeju, in South Korea[J]. Water, 2017,9(4).DOI:10.3390/w9040261.
[10] 曹雯,申双和,段春锋.中国西北潜在蒸散时空演变特征及其定量化成因[J].生态学报,2012,32(11):3394-3403.
[11] 安彬,肖薇薇.1955—2015年陕西省潜在蒸散量时空变化特征及成因[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(4):146-151.
[12] 符娜,宋孝玉,夏露,等.云南省不同生态水文分区参考作物蒸散量算法适用性评价[J].农业机械学报,2017,48(5):208-217.
[13] 严坤,王玉宽,徐佩,等.岷江源区Hargreaves法适用性与未来参考作物蒸散量预测[J].农业机械学报,2018,49(4):273-281.
[14] 刘梦,罗玉峰,汪文超,等.基于天气预报的漳河灌区参考作物腾发量预报方法比较[J].农业工程学报,2017,33(19):156-162.
[15] Valipour, Mohammad. Analysis of potential evapotranspiration using limited weather data[J]. Applied Water Science, 2017,7(1):187-197.
[16] 刘昌明,张丹.中国地表潜在蒸散发敏感性的时空变化特征分析[J].地理学报,2011,66(5):579-588.
[17] 曹永强,高璐,袁立婷,等.辽宁省潜在蒸散发量及其敏感性规律分析[J].地理科学,2017,37(9):1422-1429.
[18] 粟晓玲,宋悦,牛纪苹,等.泾惠渠灌区潜在蒸散发量的敏感性及变化成因[J].自然资源学报,2015,30(1):115-123.
[19] 吕明权,张磊,吴胜军.嘉陵江流域参考蒸散的年际变化趋势及成因分析[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(3):77-85.
[20] 包永志,刘廷玺,段利民,等.科尔沁沙地混生小叶锦鸡儿和人工杨树光合特性及其对气候的响应[J].干旱区研究,2019,36(2):420-429.
[21] 宋小园,朱仲元,刘艳伟,等.通径分析在SPSS逐步线性回归中的实现[J].干旱区研究,2016,33(1):108-113.
[22] 蔡甲冰,许迪,刘钰,等.冬小麦返青后腾发量时空尺度效应的通径分析[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(8):69-76.
[23] 钱多,查天山,吴斌,等.毛乌素沙地参考作物蒸散量变化特征与成因分析[J].生态学报,2017,37(6):1966-1974.
[24] 曹永强,李维佳.辽宁省潜在蒸散时空变化特征与成因[J].生态学报,2018,38(20):7276-7287.
[25] Zhao L L, Xia J, Sobkowiak L, et al. Climatic characteristics of reference evapotranspiration in the Hai River Basin and their attribution[J]. Water, 2014,6:1482-1499.
[26] 汪精海,齐广平,康燕霞,等.黑河流域潜在蒸散及其影响因素的不确定性分析[J].生态学杂志,2017,36(1):172-180.
[27] 张雪松,闫艺兰,胡正华.不同时间尺度农田蒸散影响因子的通径分析[J].中国农业气象,2017,38(4):201-210.
[28] 陈胜楠,孔喆,陈立欣,等.半干旱区城市环境下油松林分蒸腾特征及其影响因子[J].生态学报,2020,40(4):1269-1280.
[29] 张红梅,吴炳方,闫娜娜.饱和水汽压差的卫星遥感研究综述[J].地球科学进展,2014,29(5):559-568.
[30] 牛忠恩,胡克梅,何洪林,等.2000—2015年中国陆地生态系统蒸散时空变化及其影响因素[J].生态学报,2019,39(13):4697-4709.
[31] 康丽娟,巴特尔?巴克,罗那那,等.阿勒泰地区不同时间尺度参考作物蒸散量的时空变化及影响[J].中国农业气象,2018,39(8):502-511.
[32] 吴丽萍,陈洪松,连晋姣,等.喀斯特与非喀斯特地区参考作物蒸散量时空变化分析:以广西壮族自治区为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(10):1508-1517.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2020-10-20