论文部分内容阅读
为了更准确地评估三种基于蒸发互补相关原理的实际蒸散发计算模型(AA模型、GG模型、CRAE模型)对实际蒸散发的估算能力,首先根据北江流域1964~1987年间的逐日气象资料和同期径流量数据,采用HBV模型模拟得到逐日实际蒸散发量,再利用三种模型分别估算该流域的逐日实际蒸散发量,并对计算结果进行初步分析比较,而后以HBV模型计算结果为标准进行原始参数的率定,最后在不同的时间尺度上对三种模型的实际蒸散发计算结果进行对比评价。结果表明,三种模型利用原始参数进行模拟的计算结果误差较大;模型参数经率定后,各模型的模拟精度在年、月尺度上均得到提高:以HBV模型模拟得到的实际蒸散发量为标准,计算所得年极差的变化情况分别为AA模型由274mm减至-0.1mm;GG模型由-84.5mm减至0.3mm;CRAE模型由-91.1mm减至0.3mm;AA模型与GG模型的模拟结果相似,在冬季均呈现出模拟结果偏大的现象。通过分析年、月尺度上的结果可知,在北江流域,三种模型中AA模型对实际蒸散发量的估算能力最佳。
In order to more accurately evaluate the estimated evapotranspiration of three evapotranspiration calculation models (AA model, GG model and CRAE model) based on the correlation principle of evaporation complementation, first of all, based on the daily meteorological data from 1964 to 1987 in the Beijiang River Basin, Runoff data were used to simulate daily actual evapotranspiration using the HBV model and then the daily evapotranspiration was estimated by using the three models. The results of the initial analysis were compared and then the results of the HBV model were used as the standard Finally, the calculated results of the three models are compared and evaluated on different time scales. The results show that the error of the simulation results of the three models using the original parameters is relatively large. After the model parameters are fixed, the simulation accuracy of each model is improved on the annual and monthly scales: the actual evapotranspiration simulated by the HBV model As the standard, the calculated annual difference is AA-274mm -0.1mm, GG-84.5mm-0.3mm, CRAE -91.1mm-0.3mm, and the AA and GG models The simulation results are similar, both in the winter simulation results showed a large phenomenon. By analyzing the results on the annual and monthly scales, we can see that in the Beijiang River basin, the AA model has the best estimation ability for the actual evapotranspiration.