...
首页> 外文期刊>Agricultural and Forest Meteorology >Soil heat flux calculation for sunlit and shaded surfaces under row crops: 2. Model test
【24h】

Soil heat flux calculation for sunlit and shaded surfaces under row crops: 2. Model test

机译:大棚作物日照和阴凉处土壤热通量的计算:2.模型测试

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A method to calculate surface soil heat flux (G(0)) as a function of net radiation to the soil (R-N,R-S) was developed that accounts for positional variability across a row crop interrow. The method divides the interrow into separate sections, which may be shaded, partially sunlit, or fully sunlit, and calculates R-N,R-S for each interrow section using a relatively simple geometric approach. Normalized R-N,R-S is then related to normalized G(0) for 24 h time steps through a single empirical parameter. The method was tested against Go determined using the calorimetric method for upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) with north-south (NS) and east-west (EW) row orientations from sparse to full canopy cover at Bushland, Texas, USA. Data were grouped by canopy cover for three periods in the growing season, including,sparse (BEG), medium (MID), and full (END). For each row orientation, measurements used for calorimetric G(0) were located at five interrow positions in two replicates; one position was used for model calibration, and four positions were used for the model test. For NS, soil temperature and volumetric soil water content at 0.02 and 0.06 m depths and soil heat flux at the 0.08 m depth below the surface were measured. For EW, soil temperature and soil heat flux were measured at the same depths and positions as for NS, but volumetric water content was obtained only at a single depth (0.05 m) and in the interrow center in three replicates. Discrepancy between calculated and calorimetric G(0) was larger for EW compared with NS rows for BEG and MID periods (partial canopy cover), but nearly the same during the END period (full canopy cover). During BEG and MID, the greater discrepancy of calorimetric G(0) vs. calculated G(0) for EW rows compared with NS may have been related to measurement of volumetric soil water at only a single depth and interrow position, as well as lower sensor accuracy, compared with those used in NS rows. For NS, the Nash-Sutcliffe modified Index of Agreement was 0.81-0.84; for EW, it was 0.69-0.78 throughout the growing season. The method provided a straightforward way to account for positional variability of G(0) across a row crop interrow, which was most important for NS rows during sparse to medium canopy cover. Published by Elsevier B.V.
机译:开发了一种方法来计算表面土壤热通量(G(0))作为对土壤净辐射(R-N,R-S)的函数,该方法考虑了行间作物行间位置的变化。该方法将行间划分为单独的部分,这些部分可以被遮蔽,部分被日光照射或完全被日光照射,并使用相对简单的几何方法为每个行间部分计算R-N,R-S。然后通过单个经验参数将归一化的R-N,R-S与归一化的G(0)关联24小时。使用量热法针对美国德克萨斯州布什兰市从稀疏到完全冠层覆盖的南北(NS)和东西向(EW)行取向的陆地棉(Gossypium hirsutum L.)的Go进行了测试。在生长期中,按冠层覆盖率对数据进行了三个时期的分组,包括稀疏(BEG),中等(MID)和完全(END)。对于每个行方向,用于量热G(0)的测量均位于两次重复的五个行间位置。一个位置用于模型校准,四个位置用于模型测试。对于NS,测量了地表以下0.02和0.06 m处的土壤温度和体积土壤含水量以及0.08 m处的土壤热通量。对于EW,在与NS相同的深度和位置处测量土壤温度和土壤热通量,但仅在单个深度(0.05 m)处和行间中心重复三次重复获得体积水含量。与BEG和MID时段(部分天篷覆盖)的NS行相比,EW的计算和量热G(0)之间的差异更大,但在END期间(完全天篷覆盖)几乎相同。在BEG和MID期间,与NS相比,EW行的量热G(0)与计算得出的G(0)差异更大,可能与仅在单个深度和行间位置的土壤体积水的测量有关,并且更低与NS行中使用的传感器精度相比。对于NS,Nash-Sutcliffe修改后的协议指数为0.81-0.84;对于EW,整个生长季节为0.69-0.78。该方法提供了一种简单的方法来解释行作物行间G(0)的位置变异性,这对于稀疏至中型树冠覆盖期间的NS行最重要。由Elsevier B.V.发布

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