首页> 外文期刊>Advances in Water Resources >Can weighing lysimeter ET represent surrounding field ET well enough to test flux station measurements of daily and sub-daily ET?
【24h】

Can weighing lysimeter ET represent surrounding field ET well enough to test flux station measurements of daily and sub-daily ET?

机译:称量溶渗仪ET是否可以很好地表示周围环境ET,以测试每日和次日ET的通量站测量结果?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Weighing lysimeters and neutron probes (NP) are both used to determine the change in soil water storage needed to solve for evapotranspiration (ET) using the soil water balance equation. We compared irrigated cotton ET determined using two large (3 × 3 × 2.4-m deep) weighing lysimeters and eight NP soil water profiles located outside the lysimeters in cotton fields during the BEAREX08 field campaign (see [16] Evett et al., 2012). The objectives were to (ⅰ) determine if lysimeter-based ET fluxes were representative of those from the fields, designated NE and SE, in which the lysimeters were centered, and (ⅱ) investigate different methods of computing the soil water balance using NP data. Field fluxes were determined from the soil water balance using neutron probe measurements of change in profile water content storage. Fluxes of ET from the SE lysimeter were representative of those from the field throughout the season and can be used with reasonable certainty for comparisons of ET fluxes and energy balance closure derived from Bowen ratio (BR) and eddy covariance (EC) measurements whose footprints lay in the SE field. Comparisons of ET fluxes from EC and BR systems to those from the NE lysimeter should consider that NE lysimeter fluxes were up to 18% larger than those from the NE field during the period of rapid vegetative growth. This was due to plants on the lysimeter having greater height and width than those in the field. Nevertheless, the data from this and companion studies documents substantial underestimation of crop ET by EC stations under the conditions of BEAREX08. Comparison of zero flux plane (ZFP) and simple soil water balance methods of calculating ET from NP data showed them to be equivalent in this study; and for the ZFP method, the depth of the control volume should be determined by the depth at which the hydraulic gradient reverses, not by the depth of calculated minimum flux. If supported by a sufficiently dense and widespread network of deep soil water balance based estimates of ET in the surrounding patch and by ancillary measurements of crop stand and growth within the lysimeter and in the surrounding patch, a weighing lysimeter can provide accurate ET ground truth for comparisons with ET estimated using flux stations or ET calculated using satellite imagery. It must be emphasized that the water balance measurements must include soil profile water content measurements to well below (e.g., 0.5 to 1 m below) the root zone in order to close the water balance.
机译:称重溶渗计和中子探针(NP)都用于使用土壤水平衡方程来确定解决蒸散量(ET)所需的土壤水储量变化。我们比较了在BEAREX08田间运动期间使用两个大型(3×3×2.4米深)称重渗漏计和位于棉花田中渗漏计外部的八个NP土壤水分剖面测定的灌溉棉花ET(参见[16] Evett等人,2012年) )。目的是(ⅰ)确定以溶渗仪为基础的ET通量是否代表那些以溶渗仪为中心的,以NE和SE为代表的领域的通量,以及(ⅱ)研究使用NP数据计算土壤水分平衡的不同方法。使用中子探针测量剖面含水量的变化,从土壤水分平衡中确定场通量。来自SE溶渗仪的ET通量代表了整个季节的田间通量,并且可以合理确定地用于比较ET通量和能量分布的比较,该通量和能量平衡的闭合是通过Bowen比(BR)和涡度协方差(EC)测量得出的,这些测量的足迹是足迹在SE字段中。将EC和BR系统的ET通量与NE溶渗仪的ET通量进行比较,应考虑到在营养生长迅速的时期,NE溶渗仪的通量比NE场的通量大18%。这是由于溶菌仪上的植物的高度和宽度大于田间的植物。然而,来自这项研究和伴随研究的数据表明,在BEAREX08的条件下,EC站对作物ET的估计大大低了。零通量平面(ZFP)和简单的土壤水平衡方法(根据NP数据计算ET)的比较表明,它们在本研究中是等效的。对于ZFP方法,控制体积的深度应由水力梯度反转的深度决定,而不是由计算出的最小通量的深度决定。如果有足够密集和广泛的基于深层土壤水平衡的网络,可以根据周围斑块中的ET估算值,并通过辅助测量蒸渗仪和周围斑块中的作物生长状况和生长,称重的溶渗仪可以提供准确的ET地面真相与使用通量站估算的ET或使用卫星影像计算的ET进行比较。必须强调的是,水平衡测量必须包括土壤剖面含水量测量值,该测量值要远低于根区域(例如低于0.5至1 m),以关闭水平衡。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号