黄土高原小区径流过程预测模型评价
|
摘要
地表径流是土壤侵蚀和泥沙搬运的主要原动力。径流过程及其特征值是侵蚀模型,特别是侵蚀过程模型中水文模块的重要输入资料,但相对于降雨过程和径流总量资料,径流过程数据十分匮乏。为了对径流过程进行有效模拟,本文利用黄河流域子洲径流试验站团山沟3个小区107场降雨-径流过程观测数据,在小区尺度上对比验证3个仅含有1个参数的简易入渗模型:Ⅰ入渗能力恒定法,即假设入渗能力为1个常值,产流仅发生在降雨强度大于此值的情况;Ⅱ径流系数法,即假设实际入渗率与降雨强度呈正比关系,比例系数为1与径流系数的差值;Ⅲ入渗能力空间变异法,即假设入渗能力存在空间差异,实际入渗率表现为最大入渗率和降雨强度的指数形式。同时,为考查模型在不同时间尺度上的表现,文章分别选取1、6和15 min对数据进行重采样。结果显示:以洪峰流量和有效流量的预测精度作为模型有效性评价指标,相较于径流系数法和入渗能力空间变异法,入渗能力恒定法对黄土高原区径流过程的模拟效果最好,即入渗能力恒定更符合于黄土区实际产流入渗特点;随着过程资料采样时间间隔的增加,模型的模拟精度显著提高,即模型并不依赖于高密度的采样数据。研究结果可为缺乏径流过程资料的地区提供径流过程的计算方法,且有助于定量描述水文过程、土壤侵蚀和泥沙搬运过程。
[Background] The surface runoff is one of the most significant components of hydrologic process. It's also the main force of soil erosion and transportation. As the process-based data for runoff is poorly accessible in comparison with that of rainfall,as well as runoff volume,the calculating of runoff rates based on accessible data turned out to be the key point for relative researches such as the evaluation of hydrologic progress and assessment on soil erosion and loss. [Methods] Aiming at acquiring eventbased runoff rates as accurately as possible given rainfall progress and runoff volume which were relatively easy in terms of accessibility,three simply-structured infiltration models: known as Model Ⅰ- constant infiltration capacity,Model Ⅱ- constant runoff coefficient and Model Ⅲ- spatial variable infiltration rates,were examined in this paper. Each of 3 models has only one parameter,with constant infiltrationcapacity known as Φ index for Model Ⅰ,self-explanatory runoff coefficient for Model Ⅱ,and spatially average maximum infiltration rate for model Ⅲ. The models were evaluated and compared based on 107rainfall-runoff site events from 3 plots of Shejiagou watershed in Tuanshangou,Zizhou experiment station of the Yellow River Basin. To test the model efficiency in different time scales,process-based rainfall data was resampled at time intervals of 1 min,6 min and 15 min separately,and consequently the outcome of runoff rates were obtained depending on the pattern of import data. [Results] The results,based on moderately 6-min data,showed that the model with constant infiltration capacity performed best with higher model efficiency( 0. 84) and lower mean absolute error( 5 mm / h) in predicting of peak runoff rates,compared with Model Ⅱ( 0. 65,6 mm / h) and Model Ⅲ( 0. 82,6 mm / h). The same pattern occurred to the calculation of effective runoff rates. Results for the distribution of relative errors in peak runoff rates and effective runoff rates by Model Ⅰ were also acceptable as the error mainly distributed around zero with about 60% out of 107 site-events in the range from- 20% to 20%.According to the responses to different time intervals of data collecting,the estimation accuracy of ModelⅠ in simulating peak runoff rates was obviously improved as the time interval increased from 1 to 15 min,with model efficiency increasing from 0. 69 to 0. 92,and a decrease of mean absolute error from 17 mm /h to 2 mm / h. And consequences of effective runoff rates showed a similar pattern,which might indicate that the application of the model was much appropriate in situation without large-density processed data.[Conclusions] The results can serve as providing efficient method of calculating runoff rates,and furthermore peak or effective runoff rates for areas lack of process-based runoff data,and are also conductive to the quantitative description and simulation of hydrologic process, soil erosion and transportation process.
[Background] The surface runoff is one of the most significant components of hydrologic process. It's also the main force of soil erosion and transportation. As the process-based data for runoff is poorly accessible in comparison with that of rainfall,as well as runoff volume,the calculating of runoff rates based on accessible data turned out to be the key point for relative researches such as the evaluation of hydrologic progress and assessment on soil erosion and loss. [Methods] Aiming at acquiring eventbased runoff rates as accurately as possible given rainfall progress and runoff volume which were relatively easy in terms of accessibility,three simply-structured infiltration models: known as Model Ⅰ- constant infiltration capacity,Model Ⅱ- constant runoff coefficient and Model Ⅲ- spatial variable infiltration rates,were examined in this paper. Each of 3 models has only one parameter,with constant infiltrationcapacity known as Φ index for Model Ⅰ,self-explanatory runoff coefficient for Model Ⅱ,and spatially average maximum infiltration rate for model Ⅲ. The models were evaluated and compared based on 107rainfall-runoff site events from 3 plots of Shejiagou watershed in Tuanshangou,Zizhou experiment station of the Yellow River Basin. To test the model efficiency in different time scales,process-based rainfall data was resampled at time intervals of 1 min,6 min and 15 min separately,and consequently the outcome of runoff rates were obtained depending on the pattern of import data. [Results] The results,based on moderately 6-min data,showed that the model with constant infiltration capacity performed best with higher model efficiency( 0. 84) and lower mean absolute error( 5 mm / h) in predicting of peak runoff rates,compared with Model Ⅱ( 0. 65,6 mm / h) and Model Ⅲ( 0. 82,6 mm / h). The same pattern occurred to the calculation of effective runoff rates. Results for the distribution of relative errors in peak runoff rates and effective runoff rates by Model Ⅰ were also acceptable as the error mainly distributed around zero with about 60% out of 107 site-events in the range from- 20% to 20%.According to the responses to different time intervals of data collecting,the estimation accuracy of ModelⅠ in simulating peak runoff rates was obviously improved as the time interval increased from 1 to 15 min,with model efficiency increasing from 0. 69 to 0. 92,and a decrease of mean absolute error from 17 mm /h to 2 mm / h. And consequences of effective runoff rates showed a similar pattern,which might indicate that the application of the model was much appropriate in situation without large-density processed data.[Conclusions] The results can serve as providing efficient method of calculating runoff rates,and furthermore peak or effective runoff rates for areas lack of process-based runoff data,and are also conductive to the quantitative description and simulation of hydrologic process, soil erosion and transportation process.
引文
[1]Wischmeier W H,Smith D D.Predicting rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains[R]∥Agricultural Handbook No.282.Washington DC:USDA,1965:235.
[2]符素华,刘宝元.土壤侵蚀量预报模型研究进展[J].地球科学进展,2002,17(1):78.Fu Suhua,Liu Baoyuan.Evolution of the soil erosion model[J].Advance in Earth Sciences,2002,17(1):78.(in Chinese)
[3]Williams J R.Sediment-yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor[C]∥Present and prospective technology for predicting sediment yield and sources.Washington DC:USDA,1975:244.
[4]Williams J R,Berndt H D.Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology[J].Transaction of the ASAE,1977,20(6):1100.
[5]Flanagan D C,Nearing M A.USDA-water erosion prediction project:hillslope profile and watershed model documentation NSERL Report No.10[R].West Lafayette,Indiana,USA:USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory,1995.
[6]Misra R K,Rose C W.Application and sensitivity analysis of process-based erosion model GUEST[J].European Journal of Soil Science,1996,47(4):593.
[7]Foster G R,Flanagan D C,Nearing M A,et al.Hillslope erosion component,Ch.11.In USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project:Hillslope Profile Model Documentation[R].NSERL Report No.2,eds.Lane L J and Nearing M A.West Lafayette,Ind.:National Soil Erosion Laboratory,USDA-ARS.1995.
[8]Rose C W.Research progress on soil erosion processes and a basis for soil conservation practice[J].Soil Erosion Research Methods,1994:159.
[9]Ciesiolka C A,Coughlan K J,Rose C W,et al.Methodology for a multi-country study of soil erosion management[J].Soil Technology,1995,8(3):179.
[10]Loague K M,Freeze R A.A comparison of rainfall-runoff modeling techniques on small upland catchments[J].Water Resources Research,1985,21(2):229.
[11]Ciesiolka C A,Coughlan K J,Rose C W,et al.Erosion and hydrology of steeplands under commercial pineapple production[J].Soil Technology,1995,8(3):243.
[12]Yu B,Rose C W,Coughlan K J,et al.Plot scale rainfall-runoff characteristics and modeling at six sites in Australia and Southeast Asia[J].Transactions of the ASAE,1997,40(5):1295.
[13]Yu B.A comparison of Green-Ampt and a spatially variable infiltration model for natural storm events[J].Transactions of the ASAE,1999,42(1):89.
[14]汤立群,陈国祥.小流域产流产沙动力学模型[J].水动力学研究与进展,1997,12(2):164.Tang Liqun,Chen Guoxiang.A dynamic model of runoff and sediment yield from small watershed[J].Journal of Hydrodynamics,1997,12(2):164.(in Chinese)
[15]黄新会,王占礼,田风霞.黄土区均匀坡面水文模型研究[J].水土保持通报,2005,25(6):45.Huang Xinhui,Wang Zhanli,Tian Fengxia.Hydrological model of uniform hillslope in loess region[J].Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2005,25(6):45.(in Chinese)
[16]朱显谟.黄土高原国土整治“28字方略”的理论与实践[J].中国科学院院刊,1998,03:232.Zhu Xianmo.The 28-character strategy for reclaiming the Loess Plateau,its theory&practice[J].Bullutin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,1998,3:232.(in Chinese)
[17]Yu B,Cakurs U,Rose C W.Assessment of methods for estimating runoff rates at the plot scale[J].Transactions of the ASAE,1998,41(3):653.
[18]Chow V T,Maidment D R,Mays L W.Applied hydrology[M].New York,NY:Mc Graw-Hill.1988.
[19]华东水利学院.中国湿润地区洪水预报方法[M].北京:水利电力出版社,1978:21.East China College of Hydraulic Engineering,Nanjing,China.Flood forecasting method for humid regions of China[M].Beijing:China Water Power Press,1978:21.(in Chinese)
[20]蒋定生,黄国俊.黄土高原土壤入渗速率的研究[J].土壤学报,1986(4):299.Jiang Dingsheng,Huang Guojun.Study on the infiltration rate of soil on the Loess Plateau of China[J].Acta Pedologica Sinica,1986(4):299.(in Chinese)
[21]Yu B.GOSH:A program for calculating runoff rates given rainfall rates and runoff amount,User guide and reference manual[M].ENS Working Paper,2/97.Nathan,Queensland,Australia:Faculty of Environmental Sciences,Griffith University,1997.
[22]Cheng S J,Wang R Y.An approach for evaluating the hydrological effects of urbanization and its application[J].Hydrological Processes,2002,16(7):1403.
[23]Chen R S,Chuang W N,Cheng S J.Effects of urbanization variables on model parameters for watershed divisions[J].Hydrological Sciences Journal,2014,59(6):1167.
[24]宋晓猛,张建云,王国庆,等.变化环境下城市水文学的发展与挑战:Ⅱ.城市雨洪模拟与管理[J].水科学进展,2014,25(5):752.Song Xiaomeng,Zhang Jianyun,Wang Guoqing,et al.Development and challenges of urban hydrology in a changing environment-Ⅱ.Urban stormwater modeling and management[J].Advances in Water Science,2014,25(5):752.(in Chinese)
[25]Nash J E,Sutcliffe J V.River flow forecasting through conceptual models,Part 1:A discussion of principles[J].Journal of Hydrology,1970,10(3):282.
[2]符素华,刘宝元.土壤侵蚀量预报模型研究进展[J].地球科学进展,2002,17(1):78.Fu Suhua,Liu Baoyuan.Evolution of the soil erosion model[J].Advance in Earth Sciences,2002,17(1):78.(in Chinese)
[3]Williams J R.Sediment-yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor[C]∥Present and prospective technology for predicting sediment yield and sources.Washington DC:USDA,1975:244.
[4]Williams J R,Berndt H D.Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology[J].Transaction of the ASAE,1977,20(6):1100.
[5]Flanagan D C,Nearing M A.USDA-water erosion prediction project:hillslope profile and watershed model documentation NSERL Report No.10[R].West Lafayette,Indiana,USA:USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory,1995.
[6]Misra R K,Rose C W.Application and sensitivity analysis of process-based erosion model GUEST[J].European Journal of Soil Science,1996,47(4):593.
[7]Foster G R,Flanagan D C,Nearing M A,et al.Hillslope erosion component,Ch.11.In USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project:Hillslope Profile Model Documentation[R].NSERL Report No.2,eds.Lane L J and Nearing M A.West Lafayette,Ind.:National Soil Erosion Laboratory,USDA-ARS.1995.
[8]Rose C W.Research progress on soil erosion processes and a basis for soil conservation practice[J].Soil Erosion Research Methods,1994:159.
[9]Ciesiolka C A,Coughlan K J,Rose C W,et al.Methodology for a multi-country study of soil erosion management[J].Soil Technology,1995,8(3):179.
[10]Loague K M,Freeze R A.A comparison of rainfall-runoff modeling techniques on small upland catchments[J].Water Resources Research,1985,21(2):229.
[11]Ciesiolka C A,Coughlan K J,Rose C W,et al.Erosion and hydrology of steeplands under commercial pineapple production[J].Soil Technology,1995,8(3):243.
[12]Yu B,Rose C W,Coughlan K J,et al.Plot scale rainfall-runoff characteristics and modeling at six sites in Australia and Southeast Asia[J].Transactions of the ASAE,1997,40(5):1295.
[13]Yu B.A comparison of Green-Ampt and a spatially variable infiltration model for natural storm events[J].Transactions of the ASAE,1999,42(1):89.
[14]汤立群,陈国祥.小流域产流产沙动力学模型[J].水动力学研究与进展,1997,12(2):164.Tang Liqun,Chen Guoxiang.A dynamic model of runoff and sediment yield from small watershed[J].Journal of Hydrodynamics,1997,12(2):164.(in Chinese)
[15]黄新会,王占礼,田风霞.黄土区均匀坡面水文模型研究[J].水土保持通报,2005,25(6):45.Huang Xinhui,Wang Zhanli,Tian Fengxia.Hydrological model of uniform hillslope in loess region[J].Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2005,25(6):45.(in Chinese)
[16]朱显谟.黄土高原国土整治“28字方略”的理论与实践[J].中国科学院院刊,1998,03:232.Zhu Xianmo.The 28-character strategy for reclaiming the Loess Plateau,its theory&practice[J].Bullutin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,1998,3:232.(in Chinese)
[17]Yu B,Cakurs U,Rose C W.Assessment of methods for estimating runoff rates at the plot scale[J].Transactions of the ASAE,1998,41(3):653.
[18]Chow V T,Maidment D R,Mays L W.Applied hydrology[M].New York,NY:Mc Graw-Hill.1988.
[19]华东水利学院.中国湿润地区洪水预报方法[M].北京:水利电力出版社,1978:21.East China College of Hydraulic Engineering,Nanjing,China.Flood forecasting method for humid regions of China[M].Beijing:China Water Power Press,1978:21.(in Chinese)
[20]蒋定生,黄国俊.黄土高原土壤入渗速率的研究[J].土壤学报,1986(4):299.Jiang Dingsheng,Huang Guojun.Study on the infiltration rate of soil on the Loess Plateau of China[J].Acta Pedologica Sinica,1986(4):299.(in Chinese)
[21]Yu B.GOSH:A program for calculating runoff rates given rainfall rates and runoff amount,User guide and reference manual[M].ENS Working Paper,2/97.Nathan,Queensland,Australia:Faculty of Environmental Sciences,Griffith University,1997.
[22]Cheng S J,Wang R Y.An approach for evaluating the hydrological effects of urbanization and its application[J].Hydrological Processes,2002,16(7):1403.
[23]Chen R S,Chuang W N,Cheng S J.Effects of urbanization variables on model parameters for watershed divisions[J].Hydrological Sciences Journal,2014,59(6):1167.
[24]宋晓猛,张建云,王国庆,等.变化环境下城市水文学的发展与挑战:Ⅱ.城市雨洪模拟与管理[J].水科学进展,2014,25(5):752.Song Xiaomeng,Zhang Jianyun,Wang Guoqing,et al.Development and challenges of urban hydrology in a changing environment-Ⅱ.Urban stormwater modeling and management[J].Advances in Water Science,2014,25(5):752.(in Chinese)
[25]Nash J E,Sutcliffe J V.River flow forecasting through conceptual models,Part 1:A discussion of principles[J].Journal of Hydrology,1970,10(3):282.