4.7 Article

Water balance in the complex mountainous terrain of Bhutan and linkages to land use

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY-REGIONAL STUDIES
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 55-68

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.05.001

关键词

Reference evapotranspiration; Water balance; Optimization; Full set data; Land cover

资金

  1. representative Office of Denmark (DANIDA), Thimphu through Joint Danish-Bhutanese Research Project
  2. Aarhus University, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Region: Bhutan Study Focus: Located in the Himalayas with elevation ranging 100-7550 m and with an area equivalent to Switzerland, Bhutan has great biodiversity despite its small area. A monsoon-dominated climate causes generally wet summer and dry winter. Bhutan is highly dependent of climatic conditions for its developmental activities. Using multiple regression analysis we have established models to predict the evapotranspiration (ETo) and water balance and test the linkage to vegetation and land cover using meteorological data from 70 weather stations across Bhutan. Temperature-based ETo equations were evaluated in reference to the Penman-Monteith (PM) method and a calibrated Hargreaves (H) equation was used for computing the ETo. New Hydrological Insights for the Region. The calibrated Hargreaves equation gave good estimates of average daily ETo comparable to the PM ETo. The spatial variation in PM ETo is linked to variation in sunshine hours in summer and temperature in other seasons. Seasonal and annual ETo was mainly affected by elevation and latitude, which is linked to temperature and sunshine duration. Precipitation and water balance correlated positively with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) while ETo correlated negatively. Our models for predicting ETo and water balances performed clearly better than the global CRU gridded data for Bhutan. A positive water balance is found in broadleaf forest areas and small or negative water balance for coniferous forests. (C) 2016 The Author(s). 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

4.7
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