中国农业科学院农业信息研究所 中国农学会
Agricultural Information Institute of CAAS China Association of Agricultural Science Societies
En
Ch
中国农业科学院农业信息研究所 中国农学会 主办

AI检索

订阅

返回顶部
当前位置: 首页 > 文章 > 内蒙古河套灌区ET_0不同计算方法的对比研究 农业工程学报 2008,24 (4) 103-106
Position: Home > Articles > Comparison of estimating ET_0 with different methods in Hetao Irrigation District in Inner Mongolia Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 2008,24 (4) 103-106

内蒙古河套灌区ET_0不同计算方法的对比研究

作  者：
闫浩芳;史海滨;薛铸;张义强;刘宏云
单  位：
内蒙古河套灌区解放闸灌域沙壕渠试验站;内蒙古农业大学水利与土木工程学院
关键词：
参考作物腾发量;Penman-Monteith;Priestley-Taylor;FAO-79 Penman;Hargreaves-Samani;Irmark-Allen
摘  要：
为了提出适合内蒙古河套灌区ET0计算方法,该文根据实测田间微气象资料,分别对5种参考作物腾发量(ET0)的计算方法(FAO56Penman-Monteith,Priestley-Taylor、FAO Penman、Hargreaves-Samani、Irmark-Allen拟合)进行对比分析,并评价各方法的适用性。结果表明,FAO Penman法的计算结果与FAO56 Penman-Monteith计算结果最为接近,其平均绝对误差与平均相对误差分别为0.43mm/d,12.50%;其他方法在不同季节具有不同的正负偏差。其中,在整个计算时段内,Irmark-Allen拟合法与Hargreaves-Samani法计算值与Penman-Monteith计算结果偏差较大,不适于在此地区气候条件下使用。FAO Penman法与FAO56 Penman-Monteith法基本相同,适用于大多数气候条件;Hargreaves-Samani法适用于在温差较小地区计算ET0;Irmark-Allen法与Priestley-Taylor法适用于在相对湿度较大地区应用。
译  名：
Comparison of estimating ET_0 with different methods in Hetao Irrigation District in Inner Mongolia
作  者：
Yan Haofang1, Shi Haibin1※, Xue Zhu1, Zhang Yiqiang2, Liu Hongyun2 (1.College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Huhhot 010018, China; 2. The Shahaoqu Experiment Station of Administrative Bureau of Jie-fang Brake of Hetao Irrigation District in Inner Mongolia, Bayannaoer 015400, China)
关键词：
reference crop evapotranspiration; FAO56 Penman-Monteith; Priestly-Taylor; FAO Penman; Irmark-Allen; Hargreaves- Samani
摘  要：
In order to obtain the proper calculation methods for reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) in Hetao Irrigation District in Inner Mongolia and based on the micrometeorological data, four calculation methods (Priestly-Taylor. FAO Penman, Hargreaves-Samani, Irmark-Allen) for ET0 were compared with FAO56 Penman-Monteith, respectively, and their applicabilities in Hetao Irrigation District were evaluated. The results show that calculation results of FAO Penman method is closest with FAO56 Penman-Monteith, The average absolute error and average relative error are 0.43 mm/d and 12.50%, respectively. Other methods have different positive and negative deviations in different seasons. In the total calculation periods, deviations between the results by Irmark-Allen, Hargreaves-Samani and Penman-Monteith method are larger, so they can not be used in the district for its weather conditions. the results by FAO Penman method are similar with FAO56 Penman-Monteith method and they can be applied to the most kinds of climate condition. Hargreaves-Samani method can be used in the district in which the difference in temperature is smaller. Irmark-Allen and Priestley-Taylor methods can be used in the area in which the relative humidity is larger.

相似文章

导出引用
计量
文章访问数: 4
HTML全文浏览量: 0
PDF下载量: 0

所属期刊

推荐期刊

友情链接Friendly link
农业信息研究所Agricultural information institute 农业智能知识服务平台Agricultural intelligent knowledge service platform 农业学术服务平台Agricultural Knowledge Service System 中国知网CNKI 维普网VIP 万方WANFANG DATA
联系我们Contact us

电话Tell：010-82109652-808

邮箱E-mail：agrijournal@caas.cn

服务Service
关于我们About us 意见建议Opinions and suggest
版权说明Copyright
单位：中国农业科学院农业信息研究所 中国农学会 © 2017中国农业科学院农业信息研究所 ICP备案号：京ICP备09089781号-46