摘要
以Penman-Monteith方法为标准,利用Hargreaves方法,Priestley-Taylor方法和FAO-17 Penman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。
Based on the FAO-Penman-Monteith method, used the Hargreaves method, the Priestley-Taylor method, and the FAO-17 Penman method, this paper calculated the reference crop evapotranspiration （ ET0 ） of Urumqi in Xinjiang. The results were compared and analyzed, and different methods were re- vised. The results showed that （1） the seasonal distribution of ETo is extremely uneven which has a de- crease 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 F17 are 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 de- mand is not very high, the PT method can be used to calculate the ETo of Urumqi, if the precision demand is high, the revised PT method will be used to estimate the ETo ; （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 ETo for Urumqi by application of the HG method ; （5） the F17 method and the PM method a- dopts different revised schemes of wind velocity, witch results in a large deviation and unsuitable for ETo estimation of Urumqi.
出处
《水资源与水工程学报》
2013年第4期15-19,24,共6页
Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering
基金
国家自然科学基金项目(41275012)
