CAJ | 학술논문

参考作物蒸散量(ET0)的估算是作物需水量计算的关键，诸多估算方法在不同地区具有不同的适应性。本文利用中国农业主产区6个代表站点的气象数据，以FAO 56 Penman-Monteith (PM)为标准，对常用的1963 Penman(Pen63)、FAO 1979 Penman(FAO 79)、FAO 24 Penman(FAO 24)及1996 Kimberly Penman(Kpen)共4种参考作物蒸散量综合方法进行比较评价。结果表明：（1）Pen63、FAO 79及Kpen的日估算值均比PM估算值偏高，FAO 24偏低，其平均偏差分别为0.28、0.52、0和-0.17mm?d?1，相对偏差为16.0%、25.2%、2.4%、-5.3%，相对均方根误差为12.1%、22.4%、14.2%和13.5%。（2）Pen63、FAO 79的月估算值显著高于PM值，在高估最大的5月份平均偏高12.5mm (10.8%)和28.2mm (22.6%)。FAO 24表现为低估，低估最大的月份平均偏低11.4mm (8.1%)，但在南方站点多数月份的估算值与PM估算值无显著差异。Kpen月估算值与PM估算值相比，既有高估(5-10月)，也有低估，高估最大的月份平均偏高19.7mm(14.5%)，且在南方站点的秋冬季有近6个月与PM无显著差异。（3）Pen63和FAO 79的年值均显著大于PM年值，平均偏高103.8mm(11.8%)和191.5mm(21.3%)。FAO 24年平均低估PM值60.9mm (6.3%)，Kpen则平均高估50.5mm (5.8%)。（4）时间尺度对评价结果具有一定影响，4种综合法依据日、年值的评价效果排序分别为Pen63＞FAO 24＞Kpen＞FAO 79和Kpen＞FAO 24＞Pen63＞FAO 79。在日尺度下4种方法更适于湿润气候，但年尺度下仅FAO 79和FAO 24较适于湿润气候。可见，4种综合法以Pen63普适性最好，FAO 79最低，因此使用FAO 79前对其进行适应性评价尤为重要。
삼고작물증산량(ET0)적고산시작물수수량계산적관건，제다고산방법재불동지구구유불동적괄응성。본문이용중국농업주산구6개대표참점적기상수거，이FAO 56 Penman-Monteith (PM)위표준，대상용적1963 Penman(Pen63)、FAO 1979 Penman(FAO 79)、FAO 24 Penman(FAO 24)급1996 Kimberly Penman(Kpen)공4충삼고작물증산량종합방법진행비교평개。결과표명：（1）Pen63、FAO 79급Kpen적일고산치균비PM고산치편고，FAO 24편저，기평균편차분별위0.28、0.52、0화-0.17mm?d?1，상대편차위16.0%、25.2%、2.4%、-5.3%，상대균방근오차위12.1%、22.4%、14.2%화13.5%。（2）Pen63、FAO 79적월고산치현저고우PM치，재고고최대적5월빈평균편고12.5mm (10.8%)화28.2mm (22.6%)。FAO 24표현위저고，저고최대적월빈평균편저11.4mm (8.1%)，단재남방참점다수월빈적고산치여PM고산치무현저차이。Kpen월고산치여PM고산치상비，기유고고(5-10월)，야유저고，고고최대적월빈평균편고19.7mm(14.5%)，차재남방참점적추동계유근6개월여PM무현저차이。（3）Pen63화FAO 79적년치균현저대우PM년치，평균편고103.8mm(11.8%)화191.5mm(21.3%)。FAO 24년평균저고PM치60.9mm (6.3%)，Kpen칙평균고고50.5mm (5.8%)。（4）시간척도대평개결과구유일정영향，4충종합법의거일、년치적평개효과배서분별위Pen63＞FAO 24＞Kpen＞FAO 79화Kpen＞FAO 24＞Pen63＞FAO 79。재일척도하4충방법경괄우습윤기후，단년척도하부FAO 79화FAO 24교괄우습윤기후。가견，4충종합법이Pen63보괄성최호，FAO 79최저，인차사용FAO 79전대기진행괄응성평개우위중요。
Accurate estimation of reference crop evapotranscpiration(ET0) is critical for computation of crop water requirement. The currently existed numerous ET0 methods, while bring convenience for computation of crop water requirement, also cause confusion in method choice. Knowledge on validity of these methods in different regions is thus the basis for reasonable choice. Using data from six sites in main agricultural areas in China, four commonly used combination methods were assessed with FAO 56 Penman-Monteith (PM) as standard. The results showed that the Pen63 (1963 Penman),FAO 79 (FAO 1979 Penman) and Kpen (1996 Kimberly Penman) overestimated the daily value of PM, while the FAO 24 (FAO 24 Penman) underestimated it. The average deviation was respectively 0.28, 0.52, 0.14 and-0.17mm?d?1, corresponding to relative deviation of 16.0%, 25.2%, 2.4%,-5.3% and relative root mean squire error of 12.1%, 22.4%, 14.2% and 13.5%. Monthly totals of the Pen63 and FAO 79 were significantly higher than that of the PM, the largest being respectively 12.5mm (10.8%) and 28.2mm (22.6%) occurred in May.Monthly values of the FAO 24 were lower than that of the PM, the largest being 11.4mm (8.1%), but they showed insignificant difference in most months for the southern sites. The Kpen overestimated the PM, the largest being 19.7mm (14.5%), during May through October and underestimated it in other months, and they showed insignificant difference in six months for the southern sites. On basis of yearly total, both the Pen63 and the FAO 79 significantly overestimated the PM by 103.8mm (11.8%) and 191.5mm (21.3%), respectively. Though the FAO 24 significantly underestimated the PM by 60.9mm (6.3%) and the Kpen overestimated it by 50.5mm (5.8%) in general, they showed insignificant difference from the PM at Shapingba and Beijing. Time scale affected the evaluation results. Based on daily and yearly comparison the performance order was respectively Pen63>FAO 24>Kpen>FAO 79 and Kpen>FAO 24> Pen63>FAO 79. In addition, all methods performed better in humid climates at daily scale, but only FAO 79 and FAO 24 did so at yearly scale. Validity of the four combination methods varied, and Pen63 was the best and the FAO 79 the poorest, suggesting the importance to evaluate the latter before use.