文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Comparison of three evapotranspiration models in a rain-fed spring maize filed in the Loess Plateau, China

作者：Gao, Xiang[1,2] Gu, Fengxue[1] Gong, Daozhi[1] Hao, Weiping[1] Chu, Jianmin[2] Li, Haoru[1]

第一作者：Gao, Xiang;高翔

通信作者：Gao, X[1];Gao, X[2]

机构：[1]Minist Agr & Rural Affairs Peoples Republ China, Key Lab Dryland Agr, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China;[2]Chinese Acad Forestry, Res Inst Forestry, Key Lab Tree Breeding & Cultivat, Natl Forestry & Grassland Adm, Beijing 100091, Peoples R China

年份：2020

卷号：76

期号：4

起止页码：155-163

外文期刊名：JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY

收录：;Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-85092344797);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:000580591300001)】；

基金：The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Non-profit Research Institution of CAF (CAFYBB2019SY007), the Research Funding of Key Laboratory of Dryland Agriculture (2018KLDA01), and the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund (No. BSRF201708) supported this research project.

语种：英文

外文关键词：Modified Priestley-Taylor model; Penman-Monteith model; Rain-fed spring maize; Shuttleworth-Wallace model; The Loess Plateau

摘要：Accurate estimates of the rain-fed field evapotranspiration (ET) in the Loess Plateau of Northwest China is critical for predicting hydrologic processes, crop yield formation, and climate change. We simulated the ET variation in a rain-fed spring maize field in the eastern Loess Plateau using the Pemnan-Monteith (PM), Shuttleworth-Wallace (SW), and modified Priestley-Taylor (PTm) models. Then we compared their results with the observed ET using the eddy covariance (EC) method. Generally, the diurnal variation in estimated ET from the three models was similar to that of observed ET by the EC method. However, the PM model significantly underestimated ET. The ET estimates obtained from the SW and PTm models were approximately equal to the observed ET by the EC method. Considering the PTm model's simplicity, we fmally recommend it for rain-fed spring maize fields in the Loess Plateau. After precipitation, the estimated ET from the three models was significantly smaller than measured ET by the EC method, especially the PM model. After a frost, all three models failed to reflect the dramatic decrease in crop transpiration, and thus significantly overestimated ET.