4.4 Article

The Dust Storm Index (DSI). A method for monitoring broadscale wind erosion using meteorological records

期刊

AEOLIAN RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 29-40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2013.10.004

关键词

Dust storms; Meteorological records; Wind erosion

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Linkage Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wind erosion of soils is a natural process that has shaped the semi-arid and arid landscapes for millennia. This paper describes the Dust Storm Index (DSI); a methodology for monitoring wind erosion using Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) meteorological observational data since the mid-1960s (long-term), at continental scale. While the 46 year length of the DSI record is its greatest strength from a wind erosion monitoring perspective, there are a number of technical challenges to its use because when the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) recording protocols were established the use of the data for wind erosion monitoring was never intended. Data recording and storage protocols are examined, including the effects of changes to the definition of how observers should interpret and record dust events. A method is described for selecting the 180 long-term ABM stations used in this study and the limitations of variable observation frequencies between stations are in part resolved. The rationale behind the DSI equation is explained and the examples of temporal and spatial data visualisation products presented include; a long term national wind erosion record (1965-2011), continental DSI maps, and maps of the erosion event types that are factored into the DSI equation. The DSI is tested against dust concentration data and found to provide an accurate representation of wind erosion activity. As the ABM observational records used here were collected according to WMO protocols, the DSI methodology could be used in all countries with WMO-compatible meteorological observation and recording systems. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.4
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