Key Laboratory of West China's Environmental System (Ministry of Education), College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China.
Key Laboratory of West China's Environmental System (Ministry of Education), College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China; Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA.
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Aug 10;729:138635. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138635. Epub 2020 Apr 28.
Accurate estimation of evapotranspiration (ET) over regional scale is essential for ecohydrological research, agricultural production, and water resources management. However, few studies have been done to estimate regional ET in data lacking, highly heterogeneous arid areas such as the Agricultural-Pastoral Ecotone in Northwest China (APENC). In this study, we compared three actual ET-estimation methods driven by Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model in a semi-arid region. We selected the state of the art Weather Research and Forecasting-Community Land Model 4.0 (WRF-CLM4.0) model, the widely used WRF-Noah model and an empirical Complementary Relationship (CR) model to compare their model structures and mechanisms of estimating daily ET in the study region. The WRF model was chosen to address the problem of data scarcity in the study region and to derive model input for ET estimation with high spatial resolution. The seasonal and pooled performances of the three models were verified with in situ observations. Results indicate that the WRF-CLM4.0 model shows a better applicability in the study region, with a superior performance for the pooled datasets (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.89, root-mean-square error [RMSE] = 0.66 mm/d and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient [NSE] = 0.90), while the CR model has a comparable performance (r = 0.91, RMSE = 0.86 mm/d and NSE = 0.85) and the WRF-Noah model shows the worst performance (r = 0.82, RMSE = 0.94 mm/d and NSE = 0.81). The differences are mainly caused by different representations of the land surface characteristics and hydrology of the study region by the three different models. Our analysis shows that the WRF-CLM4.0 model and the CR model are more applicable to the APENC than the WRF-Noah model. For regional applications, the CR model, with fewer parameters and simpler structure, is able to capture the local characteristic and well-suited for data lacking, highly heterogeneous landscapes such as the APENC.
准确估算区域尺度上的蒸散量(ET)对于生态水文学研究、农业生产和水资源管理至关重要。然而,在中国西北农牧交错带(APENC)等数据匮乏、高度异质的干旱地区,对区域 ET 的估算研究甚少。本研究对比了三种基于天气研究与预报(WRF)模型驱动的实际 ET 估算方法在半干旱地区的应用。我们选择了最先进的天气研究与预报-陆面模式 4.0(WRF-CLM4.0)模型、广泛应用的 WRF-Noah 模型和经验互补关系(CR)模型,比较了它们在研究区域估算日蒸散量的模型结构和机制。选择 WRF 模型是为了解决研究区域数据匮乏的问题,并为高空间分辨率的 ET 估算提供模型输入。利用现场观测对三种模型的季节性和综合性能进行了验证。结果表明,WRF-CLM4.0 模型在研究区域具有更好的适用性,在综合数据集上表现更为出色(皮尔逊相关系数[r]为 0.89,均方根误差[RMSE]为 0.66mm/d,纳什-苏特克里夫效率系数[NSE]为 0.90),而 CR 模型具有相当的性能(r为 0.91,RMSE 为 0.86mm/d,NSE 为 0.85),WRF-Noah 模型表现最差(r 为 0.82,RMSE 为 0.94mm/d,NSE 为 0.81)。这些差异主要是由三个不同模型对研究区域土地表面特征和水文的不同表示造成的。分析表明,WRF-CLM4.0 模型和 CR 模型比 WRF-Noah 模型更适用于 APENC。对于区域应用,CR 模型参数少、结构简单,能够捕捉到局部特征,非常适合 APENC 等数据匮乏、高度异质的景观。