4.7 Article

Development and properties of 0.25-degree gridded evapotranspiration data fields of China for hydrological studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 358, 期 3-4, 页码 145-158

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.034

关键词

reference evapotranspiration; ration; China; gridded data; spatial distribution; run-off; interpolation

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [Th635/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Construction and spatial and temporal properties for a 0.25 degrees resolution gridded data set of monthly Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration estimates over the territory of the PR China (including Tibet) and adjacent areas (15 degrees N-55 degrees N, 65 degrees E-135 degrees E) for the period 1951-1990 are described. To account for the interaction between climate and the rugged topography of the study area the REGEOTOP procedure was used to incorporate the effects of relief forms into the interpolation. Evapotranspiration rates over much of China show a range of values (annual rates from 550-2300 mm) and variability comparable to precipitation. Monthly evapotranspiration rates are distributed more evenly over the year than precipitation, are out of phase with the summer precipitation peak and in some cases may reach winter rates comparable to those in summer. Hydrological studies based on idealized regular seasonal variation of evapotranspiration may contain considerable errors due to inherent seasonal fluctuations as compared to precipitation. High resolution gridded PET data that account for the influence of topography on climate are required to resolve the spatial heterogeneity of topography and land use in order to allow precise estimates of actual evapotranspiration and run-off. The spatial distribution of runoff appears to have remained fairly constant over most of China during 19511990 which stands in contrast to the anticipated increase in hydrological activity under global warming conditions. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据