Chang Xuexiang, Zhao Wenzhi, Zeng Fanjiang
Linze Inland River Basin Research Station, Chinese Ecosystem Research Network, Linze, China.
Key Laboratory of Ecohydrology of Inland River Basin, Cold & Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China.
Environ Monit Assess. 2015 Nov;187(11):699. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4920-9. Epub 2015 Oct 23.
In arid northwestern China, water shortages have triggered recent regulations affecting irrigation water use in desert-oasis agricultural systems. In order to determine the actual water demand of various crops and to develop standards for the rational use of water resources, we analyzed meteorological data from the Fukang desert ecosystem observation and experiment station (FKD), the Cele desert-grassland ecosystem observation and research station (CLD), and the Linze Inland River Basin Comprehensive Research Station (LZD), which all belong to the Chinese Ecosystem Research Network. We researched crop evapotranspiration (ETc) using the water balance method, the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method, the Priestley-Taylor method, and the Hargreaves method, during the growing seasons of 2005 through 2009. Results indicate substantial differences in ETc, depending on the method used. At the CLD, the ETc from the soil water balance, FAO-56 Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, and Hargreaves methods were 1150.3±380.8, 783.7±33.6, 1018.3±22.1, and 611.2±23.3 mm, respectively; at the FKD, the corresponding results were 861.0±67.0, 834.2±83.9, 1453.5±47.1, and 1061.0±38.2 mm, respectively; and at the LZD, 823.4±110.4, 726.0±0.4, 722.3±29.4, and 1208.6±79.1 mm, respectively. The FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method provided a fairly good estimation of E Tc compared with the Priestley-Taylor and Hargreaves methods.
在中国西北干旱地区,水资源短缺引发了近期一系列影响沙漠绿洲农业系统灌溉用水的规定。为了确定各类作物的实际需水量并制定合理利用水资源的标准,我们分析了来自阜康荒漠生态系统观测与实验站(FKD)、策勒荒漠草原生态系统观测研究站(CLD)以及临泽内陆河流域综合研究站(LZD)的气象数据,这三个站点均隶属于中国生态系统研究网络。我们在2005年至2009年作物生长季期间,运用水量平衡法、联合国粮农组织(FAO)-56彭曼-蒙特斯法、普里斯特利-泰勒法以及哈格里夫斯法对作物蒸散量(ETc)进行了研究。结果表明,根据所使用的方法不同,ETc存在显著差异。在CLD站点,土壤水量平衡法、FAO-56彭曼-蒙特斯法、普里斯特利-泰勒法以及哈格里夫斯法得出的ETc分别为1150.3±380.8毫米、783.7±33.6毫米、1018.3±22.1毫米以及611.2±23.3毫米;在FKD站点,相应结果分别为861.0±67.0毫米、834.2±83.9毫米、1453.5±47.1毫米以及1061.0±38.2毫米;在LZD站点,相应结果分别为823.4±110.4毫米、726.0±0.4毫米、722.3±29.4毫米以及1208.6±79.1毫米。与普里斯特利-泰勒法和哈格里夫斯法相比,FAO-56彭曼-蒙特斯法对ETc的估算效果较好。