基于不同参考作物腾发量计算方法的SPEI干旱分析——以赤峰地区为例  

Drought Analysis of SPEI Based on Different Evapotranspiration Evaluation Methods——Taking Chifeng Area as An Example

作　　者：李英豪[1] 陈涛涛[1] 迟道才[1] 金冶 张瑞[3] LI Ying-hao;CHEN Tao-tao;CHI Dao-cai;JIN Ye;ZHANG Rui(College of Water Conservancy,Shenyang Agricultural University,Shenyang 110161,China;Donggang Water Conservancy Bureau, Donggang Liaoning 118300,China;Jilin Agriculture Science And Technology College,Jilin Jilin 132101,China)

机构地区：[1]沈阳农业大学水利学院,沈阳110161 [2]辽宁东港市水利局,辽宁东港118300 [3]吉林农业科技学院,吉林吉林132101

出　　处：《沈阳农业大学学报》2018年第6期735-741,共7页Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University

基　　金：国家公益性行业(农业)科研专项项目(201303125);国家自然科学基金项目(51679142;51709173);辽宁省特聘教授基金项目(2013)

摘　　要：标准化降水蒸散指数(SPEI)通过参考作物腾发量(ET0)与降水的差值表征一个地区干湿状况,是分析干旱演变趋势的一种具有多尺度、多空间特性的重要指标,已广泛应用于干旱评估、水资源管理等领域。为了研究不同ET0的计算方法对SPEI的影响,根据内蒙古赤峰附近的6个气象站56a的逐日气象资料,以Penman-Monteith法(PM法)为标准,分别对基于温度的Thornthwaite法(TW法)和基于辐射的Priestley-Taylor法(PT法)进行了多重对比分析。结果表明:在干旱频率方面,两种方法较PM法都低估了旱情。TW法更接近PM法的计算结果。在多时间尺度干旱频率分析方面,PM法在特旱和正常方面的频率在大部分时间尺度下大于其他两种方法,而在重旱和干旱方面的频率小于其他两种方法。较PM法而言,TW法和PT法对干旱的响应偏弱,弱化了干旱等级。且随着时间尺度的增加,3种方法相互间大小规律整体不变。时间尺度大于3个月的情况下,3种方法 SPEI间差异规律更为明显。在干旱历时方面,两种方法与PM法无显著性差异。在平均干旱强度方面,PT法显著低于PM法,而TW法与PM法无显著性差异。PT法低估了干旱强度,TW法与PM法更为接近。U检验表明TW法与PM法一致性最好,在干旱历时和平均干旱强度方面,TW法与PM法间一致性系数(0.964,0.353)均高于PT法与PM法间的系数(0.628,0.279)。The standard precipitation evapotranspiration index(SPEI)is calculated by the deviation between reference crop evapotranspiration(ET0)and precipitation for assessing the variability of dryness/wetness conditions.As an important index with the characteristics of multi-scalar and multi-spatial in evolution trend analysis,SPEI has been widely used in drought evaluation and water management.In order to evaluate the influence of different methods of ET0 calculation to SPEI,three commonly used methods were compared in accordance to datasets from 6 meteorological stations of Chifeng area in the Inner Mongolia province during the period of 1960 to 2015.The temperature and solar radiation as well as energy balance and turbulent diffusion-based Penman-Monteith method(PM method)was used as a standard method to make multiple comparative analysis with Temperature-based Thornthwait method(TW method)and solar radiation-based Priestley-Taylor method(PT method),respectively.The results showed as followed:Compared with PM method,the other two methods underestimated drought.TW method is closer to PM method compared with PT method.Chi-square test showed the three methods were not significantly different when evaluating frequency of different drought degrees.Compared with PM method,TW method and PT method had a weak response to drought,thus weaken drought grade.With the increase of time scales,the quantity relationship between three methods of different drought degree remained generally unchanged.When time scales were more than 3 months,different methods of SPEI showed more clear regularity.When evaluating drought duration,the other two methods showed no significant difference with PM method.The average drought magnitude of PT method was significantly smaller than PM method,thus PT method underestimated the average drought magnitude.However,TW method was not significantly different from PM method.Mann-Whitney U test showed TW method is more consistent with PM method compared with PT method.Extreme drought and norm frequency of PM met

关 键 词：Thornthwait法 Priestley-Taylor法 Penman-Monteith法 SPEI 

分 类 号：S161.4[农业科学—农业气象学]