4.5 Article

Spatial and Decadal Variations in Potential Evapotranspiration of China Based on Reanalysis Datasets during 1982-2010

Journal

ATMOSPHERE
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 737-754

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos5040737

Keywords

potential evapotranspiration; pan evaporation; incident solar radiation; vapor pressure deficit; wind speed; China

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2013YB34]
  2. National Science and Technology Support Plan During the 12th Five-year Plan Period of China [2012BAC19B03, 2013BAC10B01]
  3. Natural Science Fund of China [41201331, 41101313, 41301353]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is an important indicator of atmospheric evaporation demand and has been widely used to characterize hydrological change. However, sparse observations of pan evaporation (EP) prohibit the accurate characterization of the spatial and temporal patterns of PET over large spatial scales. In this study, we have estimated PET of China using the Penman-Monteith (PM) method driven by gridded reanalysis datasets to analyze the spatial and decadal variations of PET in China during 1982-2010. The results show that the estimated PET has decreased on average by 3.3 mm per year (p < 0.05) over China during 1982-1993, while PET began to increase since 1994 by 3.4 mm per year (p < 0.05). The spatial pattern of the linear trend in PET of China illustrates that a widely significant increasing trend in PET appears during 1982-2010 in Northwest China, Central China, Northeast China and South China while there are no obvious variations of PET in other regions. Our findings illustrate that incident solar radiation (Rs) is the largest contributor to the variation of PET in China, followed by vapor pressure deficit (VPD), air temperature (Tair) and wind speed (WS). However, WS is the primary factor controlling inter-annual variation of PET over Northwest China.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available