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。
In order to obtain the proper calculation methods for reference crop evapotranspiration （ETo） 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 ETo 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 lrmark-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.
出处
《农业工程学报》
EI
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2008年第4期103-106,共4页
Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering
基金
基金:国家自然科学基金项目(50769004)
