Adaptability evaluation and modification of ET0 models in a typical oases on southern margin of the Taklimakan Desert

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00069

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2021, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (6): 41-53.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00069

Adaptability evaluation and modification of ET₀ models in a typical oases on southern margin of the Taklimakan Desert

Dagang Wang¹^,²(), Yang Yu¹^,²(), Lingxiao Sun¹^,², Jing He¹^,², Malik Ireneusz¹^,³, Wistuba Malgorzata¹^,³, Fengqing Jiang¹^,², Ruide Yu¹^,²

^1.State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology，Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Urumqi 830011，China
^2.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences，Beijing 100049，China
^3.Department of Reconstructing Environmental Change，University of Silesia，Katowice 40866，Poland

Received:2021-03-17 Revised:2021-05-18 Online:2021-11-20 Published:2021-12-17
Contact: Yang Yu

Abstract

Abstract:

ET₀ model has different applicability in different regions， and the applicability of ET₀ model in the extremely arid oasis in the southern margin of the Taklimakan Desert is relatively scarce. Based on the daily meteorological data of Qira meteorological station during the growing season （April-October） from 2006 to 2014， and the measured data of automatic weighing lysimeter as the standard， the applicability of each model in Qira oasis was evaluated 6 kinds of commonly used ET₀ models on the daily and monthly time scales by using the four indexes of maximum absolute error （MAE）， root mean square error （RMSE）， model efficiency （EF） and consistency index （d），and using regression correction method and proportional correction method calibrated ET₀ methods respectively. The results showed that：（1） Hargreaves-Samani （H-S） was overestimated to a large extent on the daily and monthly time scales， while other models were underestimated to varying degrees. The fitting degree from high to low was FAO-56PM， Jensen-Haise， Priestley-Taylor， Makkink， Turc and H-S. （2） The monthly value variation trend of all ET₀ models was basically consistent with the lysimeter measured values. Except for the monthly value of ET₀ calculated by FAO-56PM and TURC models， which reached the peak value in June， the other models all reached the peak value in July. At the scale of growing season， the monthly value of ET₀ of all models was significantly correlated with the lysimeter measured values. （3） On the daily and monthly time scales， the calculated results of ET₀ model modified by the regression correction method and the proportional correction method were significantly correlated with the measured values of the lysimeter， and the regression correction method was superior to the proportional correction method. （4） Correlation analysis showed that the main meteorological factors affecting ET₀ in Qira oasis from high to low were ： $T m e a n$ > $T m i n$ >P> $T m a x$ > $R S$ > $U 2$ > $R H m e a n$ .

Key words: southern margin of the Taklimakan Desert, Qira oasis, reference crop evapotranspiration, adaptation evaluation, model modification

CLC Number:

S161.4

Dagang Wang, Yang Yu, Lingxiao Sun, Jing He, Malik Ireneusz, Wistuba Malgorzata, Fengqing Jiang, Ruide Yu. Adaptability evaluation and modification of ET₀ models in a typical oases on southern margin of the Taklimakan Desert[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(6): 41-53.

Figures/Tables 11

Table 1 Statistic characteristics for daily ET0 between different models and lysimeter

模型	最小值/mm	最大值/mm	均值/mm	标准差	方差	变异系数
蒸渗仪	2.738	9.989	5.829	1.239	1.535	0.213
Hargreaves-Samani	5.439	18.140	13.289	3.156	9.958	0.237
Jensen-Haise	1.172	7.197	4.424	1.406	1.977	0.318
Makkink	1.717	5.152	3.453	0.729	0.531	0.211
FAO-56PM	1.853	6.915	4.963	1.190	1.416	0.240
Priestley-Taylor	1.294	6.212	4.008	1.142	1.304	0.285
Turc	0.812	2.804	1.943	0.458	0.209	0.236

Fig.1 Linear regression analysis of daily ET0 between calculated and measured values

Table 2 The evaluation of monthly ET0 simulated effects by different models

模型	线性回归		最大绝对误差 MAE	均方根误差 RMSE	模型效率 EF	一致性指数 d
模型	K	R²	最大绝对误差 MAE	均方根误差 RMSE	模型效率 EF	一致性指数 d
Hargreaves-Samani	2.2655	0.9768	7.46	7.82	-38.85	0.24
Jensen-Haise	0.7631	0.9593	1.50	1.69	-0.87	0.69
Makkink	0.5848	0.9752	2.38	2.54	-3.19	0.49
FAO-56PM	0.8482	0.9808	0.97	1.15	0.14	0.80
Priestley-Taylor	0.6876	0.9666	1.83	2.01	-1.63	0.61
Turc	0.3306	0.9744	3.89	4.00	-9.43	0.35

Fig.2 Monthly evapotranspiration calculated with different models

Table 3 Correlation coefficient between monthly measured value of lysimeter and monthly value calculated by different ET0 models （data points=214）

月份	Hargreaves-Samani	Jensen-Haise	Makkink	FAO-56PM	Priestley-Taylor	Turc
4	0.575^**	0.627^**	0.481^**	0.825^**	0.557^**	0.606^**
5	0.179	0.076	-0.088	0.375^**	-0.082	0.082
6	0.220	0.279	0.212	0.480^**	0.149	0.377^**
7	-0.235	0.004	0.049	0.226	0.040	0.113
8	0.066	0.095	0.019	0.556^**	0.043	0.137
9	0.168	0.218	0.075	0.333	0.072	0.270
10	0.760^**	0.761^**	0.748^**	0.737^**	0.790^**	0.731^**
生长季	0.764^**	0.751^**	0.711^**	0.808^**	0.747^**	0.736^**

Table 4 Slope of linear regression equation and monthly empirical coefficient of models after modified

月份	模型	回归修正		比例修正
月份	模型	a	b	K_R
4	Hargreaves-Samani	0.268	2.201	0.449
	Jensen-Haise	0.762	2.779	1.545
	Makkink	1.029	2.233	1.744
	FAO-56PM	1.113	0.081	1.129
	Priestley-Taylor	1.070	1.805	1.600
	Turc	1.794	1.835	2.701
5	Hargreaves-Samani	0.131	4.585	0.438
	Jensen-Haise	0.101	6.030	1.309
	Makkink	-0.160	7.145	1.669
	FAO-56PM	0.742	2.282	1.139
	Priestley-Taylor	-0.135	7.141	1.420
	Turc	0.273	5.893	2.793
6	Hargreaves-Samani	0.179	3.752	0.407
	Jensen-Haise	0.327	4.779	1.136
	Makkink	0.409	4.957	1.575
	FAO-56PM	1.053	0.114	1.071
	Priestley-Taylor	0.284	5.205	1.281
	Turc	1.219	3.784	2.790
7	Hargreaves-Samani	-0.458	14.042	0.406
	Jensen-Haise	0.011	6.546	1.122
	Makkink	0.179	5.874	1.602
	FAO-56PM	0.880	1.450	1.126
	Priestley-Taylor	0.141	5.881	1.273
	Turc	0.775	4.902	2.988
8	Hargreaves-Samani	0.044	5.731	0.431
	Jensen-Haise	0.148	5.619	1.237
	Makkink	0.043	6.219	1.760
	FAO-56PM	1.347	-0.717	1.212
	Priestley-Taylor	0.088	5.991	1.441
	Turc	0.606	5.179	3.209
9	Hargreaves-Samani	0.103	4.102	0.465
	Jensen-Haise	0.287	4.192	1.403
	Makkink	0.161	4.768	1.728
	FAO-56PM	0.491	3.235	1.271
	Priestley-Taylor	0.124	4.836	1.547
	Turc	1.007	3.646	3.270
10	Hargreaves-Samani	0.382	1.022	0.511
	Jensen-Haise	0.831	2.201	1.796
	Makkink	1.565	0.354	1.717
	FAO-56PM	1.009	1.158	1.415
	Priestley-Taylor	1.126	1.669	1.908
	Turc	2.459	1.132	3.419

Fig.3 Linear regression analysis of daily ET0 between calculated （modified） and measured values

Fig.4 Comparison of estimated monthly ET0 by different modified models

Table 5 The evaluation of monthly ET0 simulated effects by different modified models

月份	模型	绝对差值/mm		相对偏差/%
月份	模型	回归修正	比例修正	回归修正	比例修正
4	Hargreaves-Samani	0.01	1.05	0.01%	0.65%
	Jensen-Haise	0.00	2.32	0.00%	1.43%
	Makkink	0.00	0.77	0.00%	0.47%
	FAO-56PM	0.00	0.03	0.00%	0.02%
	Priestley-Taylor	0.00	0.64	0.00%	0.40%
	Turc	0.00	0.79	0.00%	0.48%
5	Hargreaves-Samani	0.01	0.62	0.01%	0.31%
	Jensen-Haise	0.00	2.18	0.00%	1.08%
	Makkink	-0.01	2.22	0.00%	1.10%
	FAO-56PM	-0.01	0.27	0.00%	0.13%
	Priestley-Taylor	-0.01	1.99	0.00%	0.99%
	Turc	0.00	1.54	0.00%	0.76%
6	Hargreaves-Samani	0.01	0.50	0.01%	0.25%
	Jensen-Haise	1.87	2.45	0.94%	1.22%
	Makkink	0.00	1.80	0.00%	0.90%
	FAO-56PM	-0.01	0.02	0.00%	0.01%
	Priestley-Taylor	0.00	1.27	0.00%	0.63%
	Turc	0.00	1.53	0.00%	0.77%
7	Hargreaves-Samani	5.52	6.10	2.63%	2.90%
	Jensen-Haise	5.51	6.62	2.62%	3.15%
	Makkink	5.52	6.60	2.62%	3.14%
	FAO-56PM	5.52	5.64	2.62%	2.68%
	Priestley-Taylor	5.51	6.26	2.62%	2.97%
	Turc	5.52	6.40	2.63%	3.04%
8	Hargreaves-Samani	-0.01	1.03	-0.01%	0.52%
	Jensen-Haise	-0.01	1.51	0.00%	0.77%
	Makkink	0.00	1.49	0.00%	0.75%
	FAO-56PM	0.01	-0.07	0.00%	-0.04%
	Priestley-Taylor	0.01	1.28	0.00%	0.65%
	Turc	0.00	12.16	0.00%	6.15%
9	Hargreaves-Samani	0.99	2.15	0.62%	1.35%
	Jensen-Haise	1.00	2.89	0.63%	1.82%
	Makkink	0.99	2.23	0.63%	1.41%
	FAO-56PM	14.02	1.94	8.85%	1.22%
	Priestley-Taylor	1.00	2.55	0.63%	1.61%
	Turc	0.99	2.10	0.63%	1.32%
10	Hargreaves-Samani	0.47	1.43	0.38%	1.16%
	Jensen-Haise	0.48	5.98	0.39%	4.87%
	Makkink	0.48	0.69	0.39%	0.56%
	FAO-56PM	0.48	1.60	0.39%	1.30%
	Priestley-Taylor	0.48	3.20	0.39%	2.61%
	Turc	0.48	1.54	0.39%	1.25%
生长季平均	Hargreaves-Samani	1.00	1.84	0.52%	1.02%
	Jensen-Haise	1.27	3.42	0.65%	2.05%
	Makkink	1.00	2.26	0.52%	1.19%
	FAO-56PM	2.86	1.35	1.69%	0.76%
	Priestley-Taylor	1.00	2.46	0.52%	1.41%
	Turc	1.00	3.72	0.52%	1.97%
生长季合计	Hargreaves-Samani	7.00	12.88	3.64%	7.14%
	Jensen-Haise	8.86	23.95	4.57%	14.33%
	Makkink	6.99	15.81	3.64%	8.33%
	FAO-56PM	20.02	9.42	11.86%	5.33%
	Priestley-Taylor	6.99	17.19	3.64%	9.85%
	Turc	7.00	26.06	3.65%	13.78%

Fig.5 Changes of evaporation in each meteorological factor and evaporating dish with underlying surface in the growing season

Table 6 Correlation coefficient of lysimeter measured ET0 with meteorologic variables （data points=214）

		蒸渗仪	$U 2$	$T m e a n$	$T m a x$	$T m i n$	P	$R H m e a n$	$R S$
蒸渗仪	Pearson 相关	1	0.610^**	0.778^**	0.735^**	0.762^**	-0.747^**	-0.081	0.643^**
蒸渗仪	Sig.双尾		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.236	0.000

Table 6 Correlation coefficient of lysimeter measured ET0 with meteorologic variables （data points=214）

		蒸渗仪	$U 2$	$T m e a n$	$T m a x$	$T m i n$	P	$R H m e a n$	$R S$
蒸渗仪	Pearson 相关	1	0.610^**	0.778^**	0.735^**	0.762^**	-0.747^**	-0.081	0.643^**
蒸渗仪	Sig.双尾		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.236	0.000

References 40

1	李新荣，赵洋，回嵘，等. 中国干旱区恢复生态学研究进展及趋势评述［J］.地理科学进展，2014，33（11）：1435-1443.
2	张飞，塔西甫拉提·特依拜，丁建丽，等.干旱区绿洲土地利用/覆被及景观格局变化特征：以新疆精河县为例［J］.生态学报，2009，29（3）：1251-1263.
3	Cheng W，Zhou C，Liu H，et al.The oasis expansion and eco-environment change over the last 50 years in Manas River Valley，Xinjiang［J］.Science in China，2006，49（2）：163-175.
4	瓦哈甫·哈力克，塔西甫拉提·特依拜，海米提·依米提.干旱区绿洲农业结构与水资源合理利用研究：以新疆策勒绿洲为例［J］.云南农业大学学报，2004（6）：737-742.
5	Xue X，Liao J，Hsing Y，et al.Policies，land use，and water resource management in an arid oasis ecosystem［J］.Environmental Management，2015，55（5）：1036.
6	Yu Y，Disse M，Yu R，et al.Large-scale hydrological modeling and decision-making for agricultural water consumption and allocation in the main stem Tarim River，China［J］.Water，2015，7（6）：2821-2839.
7	李宝富，陈亚宁，李卫红，等.基于遥感和SEBAL模型的塔里木河干流区蒸散发估算［J］.地理学报，2011，66（9）：1230-1238.
8	Liu Y，Shen M，Zhao J，et al.A new optimization method for the layout of pumping wells in oases：application in the Qira Oasis，Northwest China［J］.Water，2019，11（5）：970.
9	赵文智，吉喜斌，刘鹄.蒸散发观测研究进展及绿洲蒸散研究展望［J］.干旱区研究，2011，28（3）：463-470.
10	Mu Q，Zhao M，Running S W.Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm ［J］.Remote Sensing of Environment，2011，115（8）：1781-1800.
11	严坤，王玉宽，徐佩，等.岷江源区Hargreaves法适用性与未来参考作物蒸散量预测［J］.农业机械学报，2018，49（4）：273-281.
12	Allen R G，Pereira L S，Raes D，et al.Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56［J］.Fao，Rome，1998，300（9）：D05109.
13	Xiang K，Li Y，Horton R，et al.Similarity and difference of potential evapotranspiration and reference crop evapotranspiration-a review［J］.Agricultural Water Management，2020，232：106043.
14	Yagob D，Deepak J，Ahmad F，et al.Trends in reference crop evapotranspiration over Iran［J］.Journal of Hydrology，2011，399（3/4）：422-433.
15	段春锋，缪启龙，曹雯，等.西北地区小型蒸发皿资料估算参考作物蒸散［J］.农业工程学报，2012，28（4）：94-99.
16	左德鹏，徐宗学，刘兆飞.基于气温的潜在蒸散发量估算方法在我国西北干旱地区的应用比较［J］.干旱区资源与环境，2009，23（10）：123-131.
17	刘昌明，张丹.中国地表潜在蒸散发敏感性的时空变化特征分析［J］.地理学报，2011，66（5）：579-588.
18	Tabari H.Evaluation of reference crop evapotranspiration equations in various climates［J］.Water Resources Management，2010，24（10）：2311-2337.
19	Yoder R E，Odhiambo L O，Wright W C.Evaluation of methods for estimating daily reference crop evapotranspiration at a site in the humid southeast United States［J］.Applied Engineering in Agriculture，2005，21（2）：197-202.
20	Pandey P K，Dabral P P，Pandey V.Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration methods for the northeastern region of India［J］.International Soil and Water Conservation Research，2016，4（1）：52-63.
21	Trajkovic S，Kolakovic S.Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations under humid conditions［J］.Water Resources Management，2009，23（14）：3057-3067.
22	刘松林，康银红.多种ET₀计算方法在四川省湿润气候区适用性的评价研究［J］.灌溉排水学报，2018，37（）：111-117，127.
23	徐俊增，彭世彰，丁加丽，等.基于蒸渗仪实测数据的日参考作物蒸发腾发量计算方法评价［J］.水利学报，2010，41（12）：1497-1505.
24	丁加丽，彭世彰，徐俊增，等.基于温度资料的参考作物蒸发蒸腾量计算方法［J］.河海大学学报：自然科学版，2007（6）：633-637.
25	王永东，邱永志，许波，等.参考作物蒸散量计算方法在极端干旱区的适用性［J］.干旱区研究，2014，31（3）：390-396.
26	马亮，魏光辉.新疆塔里木盆地西缘参考作物蒸散发模型的适用性评价［J］.干旱区资源与环境，2015，29（8）：132-137.
27	樊湘鹏，许燕，周建平.参照作物蒸散量计算模型在新疆干旱地区适用性研究［J］.江苏农业科学，2019，47（20）：273-280.
28	袁小环，杨学军，陈超，等.基于蒸渗仪实测的参考作物蒸散发模型北京地区适用性评价［J］.农业工程学报，2014，30（13）：104-110.
29	Xu J，Peng S，Ding J，et al.Evaluation and calibration of simple methods for daily reference evapotranspiration estimation in humid East China［J］.Archives of Agronomy & Soil Science，2013，59（6）：845-858.
30	Hargreaves G H.Defining and using reference evapotranspiration［J］.Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering，1994，120（6）：1132-1139.
31	庞营军，雷加强，曾凡江，等.新疆维吾尔自治区策勒县绿洲-沙漠过渡带小气候特征［J］.水土保持通报，2011，31（5）：240-245.
32	刘毅.塔里木盆地南缘绿洲灌区地表水与地下水联合利用研究［D］.乌鲁木齐：新疆大学，2019.
33	毛东雷，蔡富艳，方登先，等.新疆策勒绿洲-沙漠过渡带风沙运动沙尘物质粒径分形特征［J］.土壤学报，2018，55（1）：88-99.
34	杜加强，熊珊珊，刘成程，等.黄河上游地区几种参考作物蒸散量计算方法的适用性比较［J］.干旱区地理，2013，36（5）：831-840.
35	Sheikh V，Mohammadi M.Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations in semi-arid regions of northeast of Iran［J］.International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences，2013，5（5）：450.
36	胡顺军，潘渝，康绍忠，等.Penman-Monteith与Penman修正式计算塔里木盆地参考作物潜在腾发量比较［J］.农业工程学报，2005，21（6）：30-35.
37	刘战东，刘祖贵，秦安振，等.黄淮海地区基于温度的ET₀计算方法比较及修正［J］.节水灌溉，2014（4）：1-6，10.
38	范留飞，皮原月，于洋，等.基于辐射和温度的ET₀模型在吐鲁番地区的比较与修正［J］.干旱地区农业研究，2020，38（2）：267-75.
39	高云飞.黑河上游天老池流域亚高山草地蒸散发研究［D］.兰州：兰州大学，2016.
40	张昊，郝春雷，董喆，等.燕山北部丘陵温热区ET₀估算方法比较及修正［J］.节水灌溉，2018（8）：81-84，89.

[1]	Li Xia, Liu Tingxi, Duan Limin, Wang Guanli, Tong Xin, Zhou Yajun, Yang Xiaojun. Simulation of reference crop evapotranspiration and analysis of the factor effect in Horqin wet meadow [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(2): 134-143.
[2]	Qi Xiaofan, Li Wenpeng, Li Haitao. Prediction and Trend of Future Potential Evapotranspiration in the Heihe River Basin Based on CMIP5 Models [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(4): 849-857.
[3]	HE Lei1, BIE Qiang1, WANG Yao2, ZHAO Chuan-yan2. Simulating Evapotranspiration Based on SEBS Model and Sensitivity Analysis of the Parameters in the Middle Reaches of Heihe River Basin [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2013, 33(6): 1866-1873.
[4]	WANG Yong-dong1, LI Sheng-yu1, XU Xin-wen, LEI Jia-qiang1, JIN Xiao-jun1, 2, 3, WANG Qiang3, DI Kun3, ZHANG Zhong-liang3. Applicability of the Hargraeves Method in Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration in the Taklamakan Desert Hinterland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2013, 33(2): 367-373.
[5]	WANG Zhi-qiang;Chaolunbagen;CHAI Jian-hua. Simulation and Prediction of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration with Grey Multi-variable Model [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2007, 27(4): 584-588.

Adaptability evaluation and modification of ET₀ models in a typical oases on southern margin of the Taklimakan Desert

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 40

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments