CAJ | 학술논문

利用湖北省74个气象站1961～2011年逐日气象资料，通过与 FAO56-Penman -Monteith （FAO-PM）模型潜在蒸散估算结果对比，从月、季、年际变化及不同干湿状况条件比较了Priestley-Taylor、Hargreaves及Thornthwaite 3种简化的经验模型在湖北省的适用性。结果表明：3种简化模型与FAO-PM模型计算的逐月潜在蒸散均存在一定偏差，Thornthwaite模型偏差最大且冬夏季偏差反位相，Priestley-Taylor模型偏差最小，Hargreaves模型各月间的偏差最为稳定。3种简化模型与FAO-PM模型估算结果具有良好的线性关系，且在各区域间相对稳定，但不同季节和干湿状况下各有差异，其中Hargreaves模型各季节间和不同干湿状况下与FAO-PM模型的关系均最为稳定。在年际变化上，Priestley-Taylor和Hargreaves模型与FAO-PM模型计算结果年际波动基本一致，Thornthwaite模型与FAO-PM模型计算结果尽管在量值上较为接近，但年际波动偏小；Priestley-Taylor和FAO-PM模型年潜在蒸散趋势变化基本一致，Hargreaves模型年潜在蒸散趋势变化微弱，而Thornthwaite模型年潜在蒸散趋势变化与FAO-PM模型相反。建议在湖北省气象资料匮乏或不便应用的情况下，作物模拟模型及气候变化等研究中采用Priestley-Taylor估算模型，日常干旱监测及水资源规划中采用Hargreaves模型，干湿气候区划等工作中可采用Thornthwaite模型。同时，使用中应基于FAO-PM模型对经验模型进行适当订正，模型订正应建立在季节或月尺度。
이용호북성74개기상참1961～2011년축일기상자료，통과여 FAO56-Penman -Monteith （FAO-PM）모형잠재증산고산결과대비，종월、계、년제변화급불동간습상황조건비교료Priestley-Taylor、Hargreaves급Thornthwaite 3충간화적경험모형재호북성적괄용성。결과표명：3충간화모형여FAO-PM모형계산적축월잠재증산균존재일정편차，Thornthwaite모형편차최대차동하계편차반위상，Priestley-Taylor모형편차최소，Hargreaves모형각월간적편차최위은정。3충간화모형여FAO-PM모형고산결과구유량호적선성관계，차재각구역간상대은정，단불동계절화간습상황하각유차이，기중Hargreaves모형각계절간화불동간습상황하여FAO-PM모형적관계균최위은정。재년제변화상，Priestley-Taylor화Hargreaves모형여FAO-PM모형계산결과년제파동기본일치，Thornthwaite모형여FAO-PM모형계산결과진관재량치상교위접근，단년제파동편소；Priestley-Taylor화FAO-PM모형년잠재증산추세변화기본일치，Hargreaves모형년잠재증산추세변화미약，이Thornthwaite모형년잠재증산추세변화여FAO-PM모형상반。건의재호북성기상자료궤핍혹불편응용적정황하，작물모의모형급기후변화등연구중채용Priestley-Taylor고산모형，일상간한감측급수자원규화중채용Hargreaves모형，간습기후구화등공작중가채용Thornthwaite모형。동시，사용중응기우FAO-PM모형대경험모형진행괄당정정，모형정정응건립재계절혹월척도。
Based on the daily meteorological data from 1961 to 2011 of 74 stations in Hubei Province,FAO56 -Penman-Monteith (FAO-PM)equation and three other empirical equations according to Priestley-Taylor,Hargreaves and Thornthwaite were used to estimate the monthly potential evapotranspiration (PET),and the applicability of the three empirical equations were evaluated by com-paring with the FAO-PM model from monthly,seasonally and yearly scales as well as under different conditions of dry,moderate and wet.Results showed that monthly PETs estimated by the three empirical equations showed great differences compared to that of FAO-PM,especially for the summer months.The PET estimated by the Thornthwaite equation had the largest error and opposite deviations in summer and winter months,the PET estimated by the Priestley-Taylor equation had the smallest error,and the PET estimated by the Hargreaves equation had the most stable deviations among different months.All in all,well relationships were found between PETs esti-mated by the three empirical equations and FAO-PMequation,and the three empirical equations were fairly stable in relationship with FAO-PM among different regions,thereinto,only the Hargreaves equation was consistent with FAO-PM in different seasons as well as under different dry/wet conditions.As to the yearly variation of PET,the Priestley-Taylor equation showed the best agreement with FAO-PM equation,while the Hargreaves equation only captured the yearly variability,the Thornthwaite equation gave a rather precise estimate in magnitude but an opposite trend and too small variability.It was recommended that in climate,crop and hydrologic model-ing as well as climate change analysis the Priestley-Taylor equation should be employed,in the practical drought monitoring and irri-gation schedule the Hargreaves equation would be the best,in dry/wet climate zoning the Thornthwaite equation might work well.Addi-tionally,necessary corrections should be done based on the FAO-PM estimates if possible,and such a practice should be carried out on a monthly or seasonal timescale.