雅鲁藏布江流域不同源降水数据质量对比研究

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.03.008

Abstract

Abstract:

The Yarlung Zangbo River is a transboundary river with rich hydropower resources. Reliable precipitation data are important for water resource development planning of the region. Due to the high elevation, complex topography, and severe climate, especially in the western part of the basin, however, rainfall stations are sparse. Precipitation estimation from satellite data or assimilation provides potential alternatives for precipitation measurements in regions where conventional precipitation gauges are not readily available. In this study, the performance of the gridded Chinese ground precipitation dataset, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) precipitation dataset, and the precipitation data of the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) in 1973-2013 were evaluated for the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin using observations from 13 meteorological stations. The results show that the four precipitation datasets significantly differ. The annual gridded Chinese ground precipitation dataset is the closest to the observed data while CRU and GLDAS precipitation datasets should be calibrated before use due to their limited precision. The CRU precipitation data show strong correlation with the observed precipitation, which indicates that there is a relatively high consistency between the CRU precipitation dataset and observed precipitation although its mean relative error is large. Monthly data analysis shows that the gridded Chinese ground precipitation dataset can reflect the variation characteristics while the CRU precipitation dataset tends to overestimate in flood season. Different from these two datasets, the GLDAS precipitation dataset presents obvious smoothing effect during the year. Annual variation of precipitation in the gridded Chinese ground precipitation dataset is closer to that of the observed precipitation while the coefficients of variation of precipitation in the other two datasets are much smaller. The GLDAS dataset overestimates precipitation in drier areas and underestimate precipitation in areas where annual precipitation is high. All the three precipitation datasets are unable to reflect the extreme precipitation events according to the probability distribution. The probability distribution of the GLDAS dataset concentrates in the range of 300~500 mm while the probability distribution of CRU precipitation ranges from 200~500 mm, higher than the observed precipitation.

Key words: Yarlung Zangbo River, precipitation, data mining, spatiotemporal variation, probability distribution

Xi HUANG, Zhonggen WANG, Yanfang SANG, Moyuan YANG, Xiaocong LIU, Tongliang GONG. Precision of data in three precipitation datasets of the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(3): 339-348.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Coefficient of variation, maximum, minimum, and average values of precipitation in the four precipitation datasets"

台站	国家气象站点数据					网格站点降水数据
台站	极大值		极小值	均值	变差系数	极大值	极小值	均值	变差系数
普兰	294.80	68.20	156.97	0.34		808.10	429.20	629.86	0.14
定日	474.30	104.90	294.32	0.28		759.43	303.20	502.71	0.18
拉孜	587.80	122.90	341.17	0.28		488.93	175.08	353.20	0.28
日喀则	665.20	210.40	427.55	0.25		497.80	218.90	384.80	0.25
江孜	498.00	131.20	287.97	0.24		516.85	225.75	395.59	0.24
尼木	534.90	210.10	345.46	0.23		566.30	254.63	399.31	0.23
当雄	706.30	327.70	475.06	0.21		648.05	323.25	444.83	0.21
拉萨	613.80	229.60	439.13	0.22		507.68	240.53	379.26	0.22
泽当	623.80	204.30	391.01	0.26		571.93	325.75	462.18	0.26
隆子	425.60	121.00	287.26	0.21		737.48	431.63	570.91	0.12
嘉黎	957.80	586.20	727.32	0.13		995.00	658.80	804.92	0.13
林芝	985.00	509.60	687.67	0.16		813.02	491.38	651.53	0.16
波密	1152.60	536.20	890.60	0.15		968.00	422.05	597.37	0.15
台站名	CRU降水数据					GLDAS降水数据
台站名	极大值		极小值	均值	变差系数	极大值	极小值	均值	变差系数
普兰	853.10	341.40	581.25	0.23		453.06	273.59	370.93	0.13
定日	1662.80	484.60	953.95	0.21		544.73	313.83	408.90	0.14
拉孜	1417.70	599.40	931.71	0.17		482.16	326.62	401.26	0.09
日喀则	1184.30	477.80	907.00	0.19		485.09	315.53	415.96	0.09
江孜	1571.10	586.20	996.36	0.19		473.26	277.47	374.25	0.10
尼木	1228.50	488.40	820.16	0.19		501.50	247.15	389.43	0.12
当雄	780.00	390.50	546.69	0.18		344.33	251.30	305.43	0.07
拉萨	884.80	377.00	655.38	0.21		483.09	318.66	381.90	0.08
泽当	1162.20	428.20	727.77	0.22		446.89	295.43	385.81	0.08
隆子	1255.70	557.70	951.87	0.14		471.89	316.17	374.16	0.09
嘉黎	604.80	356.50	465.92	0.14		351.96	272.83	304.73	0.06
林芝	880.20	440.90	662.53	0.14		482.92	382.03	415.22	0.06
波密	929.40	497.50	692.11	0.14		693.59	463.72	529.29	0.10

Tab.5

Fig.3

References 20

1	巩同梁. 2006. 雅鲁藏布江流域水循环演变机理与水资源利用战略研究[D]. 北京: 北京师范大学.
	[Gong T L.2006. Mechanism of hydrological cycle and water resources management tragedy in the Yarlung Tsangpo River Basin[D]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University.]
2	巩同梁, 刘昌明, 刘景时. 2006. 拉萨河冬季径流对气候变暖和冻土退化的响应[J]. 地理学报, 61(5): 519-526.
	[Gong T L, Liu C M, Liu J S.2006. Hydrological response of Lhasa River to climate change and permafrost degradation in Xizang[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 61(5): 519-526.]
3	胡庆芳. 2013. 基于多源信息的降水空间估计及其水文应用研究[D]. 北京: 清华大学.
	[Hu Q F.2013. Rainfall spatial estimation using multi-source information and its hydrological application[D]. Beijing, China: Tsinghua Uneversity.]
4	刘昌明. 2014. 中国水文地理[M]. 北京: 科学出版社.
	[Liu C M.2014. Chinese Hydrological Geography[M]. Beijing, China: Science Press.]
5	刘苏峡, 刘昌明, 赵卫民. 2010. 无测站流域水文预测(PUB)的研究方法[J]. 地理科学进展, 29(11): 1333-1339. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.11.014
	[Liu S X, Liu C M, Zhao W M.2010. Towards the methodology for predictions in ungauged basins[J]. Progress in Geography, 29(11): 1333-1339.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.11.014
6	骆三, 苗峻峰, 牛涛, 等. 2011. TRMM测雨产品3B42与台站资料在中国区域的对比分析[J]. 气象, 37(9): 1081-1090. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2011.9.004
	[Luo S, Miao J F, Niu T, et al.2011. A comparison of TRMM 3B42 products with rain gauge observations in China[J]. Meteorological Monthly, 37(9): 1081-1090.] doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2011.9.004
7	吕洋, 杨胜天, 蔡明勇, 等. 2013. TRMM卫星降水数据在雅鲁藏布江流域的适用性分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 28(8): 1414-1425. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2013.08.014
	[Lv Y, Yang S T, Cai M Y, et al.2013. The applicability analysis of trmm precipitation data in the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 28(8): 1414-1425.] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2013.08.014
8	马淑红, 张学文. 1991. 新疆年降水变差系数的若干规律性[J]. 气象学报, 49(1): 39-45. doi: 10.11676/qxxb1991.005
	[Ma S H, Zhang X W.1991. Some rules of variation coefficient of annual rainfall in Xinjiang[J]. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 49(1): 39-45.] doi: 10.11676/qxxb1991.005
9	王婉昭, 高艳红, 许建伟. 2013. 青藏高原及其周边干旱区气候变化特征与GLDAS适用性分析[J]. 高原气象, 32(3): 635-645. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2013.00054
	[Wang W Z, Gao Y H, Xu J W.2013. Applicability of GLDAS and climate change in the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau and its surrounding arid area[J]. Plateau Meteorology, 32(3): 635-645.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2013.00054
10	王玉娟, 王树东, 宋文龙, 等. 2013. GLDAS数据产品在渭河流域潜在蒸散发模拟中的应用研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 27(12): 53-58.
	[Wang Y J, Wang S D, Song W L, et al.2013. Application of GLDAS data to the potential evapotranspiration monitoring in Weihe River Basin[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 27(12): 53-58.]
11	闻新宇, 王绍武, 朱锦红, 等. 2006. 英国CRU高分辨率格点资料揭示的20世纪中国气候变化[J]. 大气科学, 30(5): 894-904. doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2006.05.18
	[Wen X Y, Wang S W, Zhu J H, et al.2006. An overview of China climate change over the 20th century using UK UEA/CRU high resolution grid data[J]. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 30(5): 894-904.] doi: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2006.05.18
12	赵煜飞, 朱江. 2015. 近50年中国降水格点日值数据集精度及评估[J]. 高原气象, 34(1): 50-58. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2013.00141
	[Zhao Y F, Zhu J.2015. Assessing quality of grid daily precipitation datasets in china in recent 50 years[J]. Plateau Meteorology, 34(1): 50-58.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2013.00141
13	Hulme M.1992. A 1951-80 global land precipitation climatology for the evaluation of general circulation models[J]. Climate Dynamics, 7(2): 57-72. doi: 10.1007/BF00209609
14	Jones P D.1994. Hemispheric surface air temperature variations: A reanalysis and an update to 1993[J]. Journal of Climate, 7(11): 1794-1802.
15	Jones P D, Moberg A.2003. Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001[J]. Journal of Climate, 16(2): 206-223.
16	New M, Hulme M, Jones P.2000. Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part II: Development of 1901-96 monthly grids of terrestrial surface climate[J]. Journal of Climate, 13(13): 2217-2238.
17	Peterson T C, Vose R, Schmoyer R, et al.1998. Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) quality control of monthly temperature data[J]. International Journal of Climatology, 18(11): 1169-1179. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199809)18:11<1169::AID-JOC309>3.0.CO;2-U
18	Wang A H, Zeng X B.2012. Evaluation of multireanalysis products with in situ observations over the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117(D5): D05102. doi: 10.1029/2011JD016553
19	Wang F X, Wang L, Koike T, et al.2011. Evaluation and application of a fine-resolution global data set in a semiarid mesoscale river basin with a distributed biosphere hydrological model[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116(D21): D21108. doi: 10.1029/2011JD015990
20	Wang S, Liu S X, Mo X G, et al.2015. Evaluation of remotely sensed precipitation and its performance for streamflow simulations in basins of the southeast Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 16(6): 2577-2594. doi: 10.1175/JHM-D-14-0166.1

台站	相关系数	纳西效率系数	绝对误差/mm
台站	相关系数	纳西效率系数	1月	2月	3月	4月	5月	6月	7月	8月	9月	10月	11月	12月
普兰	0.98	0.25	3.01	6.61	11.93	19.46	31.78	66.18	63.85	57.80	48.38	24.54	6.75	2.30
定日	0.99	0.66	2.63	4.12	10.13	6.87	2.18	1.12	0.48	0.41	0.85	3.29	4.32	2.19
拉孜	1.00	0.99	3.66	2.79	4.32	1.89	0.15	0.12	0.05	0.06	0.07	0.18	0.99	3.37
日喀则	1.00	0.97	0.80	4.07	4.24	1.70	0.05	0.17	0.16	0.14	0.10	0.51	1.64	16.88
江孜	1.00	0.85	1.37	2.04	1.56	1.04	0.42	0.25	0.30	0.36	0.38	1.43	1.90	0.99
尼木	1.00	0.97	1.25	2.73	1.37	0.70	0.11	0.00	0.15	0.16	0.14	0.29	3.10	1.04
拉萨	1.00	0.96	0.17	0.10	0.36	0.26	0.18	0.23	0.14	0.13	0.15	0.15	0.70	0.44
当雄	1.00	0.99	0.21	0.09	0.12	0.06	0.01	0.10	0.08	0.03	0.10	0.07	0.02	0.26
泽当	0.99	0.97	6.36	4.52	1.77	0.88	0.32	0.27	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.95	2.27	8.86
嘉黎	1.00	0.99	0.27	0.35	0.31	0.24	0.07	0.04	0.08	0.11	0.06	0.24	0.42	0.37
隆子	0.68	-2.66	0.30	0.19	0.25	2.43	3.37	6.39	4.36	3.53	4.47	3.69	1.17	0.07
林芝	0.99	0.99	0.75	0.70	0.08	0.05	0.06	0.06	0.01	0.02	0.18	0.13	0.30	1.41
波密	0.70	0.54	0.32	0.64	0.75	0.65	0.49	0.34	0.22	0.46	0.29	0.58	0.44	0.32

台站	相关系数	纳西效率系数	绝对误差/mm
台站	相关系数	纳西效率系数	1月	2月	3月	4月	5月	6月	7月	8月	9月	10月	11月	12月
普兰	0.91	0.31	26.47	45.37	42.03	40.87	28.42	16.36	8.88	28.80	15.53	11.15	14.10	16.00
定日	0.94	-1.83	13.28	21.96	30.89	42.21	50.00	130.58	130.83	97.72	82.44	31.01	15.17	13.53
拉孜	0.98	-1.28	8.72	17.29	24.85	35.52	40.86	107.78	137.37	101.94	73.04	23.58	10.19	9.43
日喀则	0.98	-0.20	3.69	10.05	12.45	27.67	35.62	98.14	123.95	81.24	63.19	17.00	3.20	3.24
江孜	0.97	-5.04	3.30	6.73	12.53	41.03	51.53	154.55	184.25	136.18	84.25	28.65	4.50	0.91
尼木	0.98	-1.61	0.19	1.43	5.76	27.47	29.79	110.42	140.26	90.17	54.47	12.88	2.41	0.55
拉萨	0.98	0.60	0.12	0.20	3.32	18.46	10.95	56.63	72.42	29.53	22.75	3.62	0.47	0.65
当雄	0.99	0.88	2.18	1.24	0.25	6.05	5.39	28.79	39.90	21.72	5.09	7.36	0.90	2.91
泽当	0.97	-0.20	0.59	0.22	0.40	24.07	23.58	93.76	97.35	57.88	32.50	6.44	1.23	0.02
嘉黎	0.97	0.81	6.74	10.25	14.80	18.28	51.65	45.99	20.30	24.55	40.24	18.49	5.82	4.29
隆子	0.58	-15.59	8.28	8.76	7.47	50.25	60.22	187.36	224.45	164.71	101.41	31.61	3.22	3.83
林芝	0.97	0.94	0.34	0.87	7.77	11.29	20.13	5.81	30.10	12.99	22.20	12.42	0.37	0.66
波密	0.73	0.56	2.02	20.71	69.75	70.36	44.63	10.36	52.78	43.91	16.24	47.56	10.94	2.60

台站	相关系数	纳西效率系数	绝对误差/mm
台站	相关系数	纳西效率系数	1月	2月	3月	4月	5月	6月	7月	8月	9月	10月	11月	12月
普兰	0.85	0.60	13.44	18.06	26.53	28.90	19.90	3.30	37.11	27.96	3.55	20.63	11.46	9.58
定日	0.80	0.44	16.71	16.43	27.09	29.44	23.01	19.43	48.35	60.57	20.93	34.83	21.94	13.71
拉孜	0.87	0.62	13.41	12.40	16.53	20.41	16.51	1.60	49.67	52.56	18.70	36.45	15.95	10.34
日喀则	0.89	0.65	6.05	9.52	10.50	18.03	10.95	3.41	65.49	66.90	9.70	38.92	14.25	6.29
江孜	0.87	0.73	4.57	5.18	7.69	19.63	17.21	10.39	26.24	24.91	13.61	36.31	16.23	6.61
尼木	0.93	0.84	2.73	3.02	2.68	9.72	9.54	0.42	23.67	23.66	12.31	33.72	13.17	3.98
拉萨	0.92	0.75	1.20	0.32	0.61	8.20	2.92	19.54	51.05	46.43	2.55	33.06	12.75	3.29
当雄	0.96	0.69	1.49	1.52	3.58	5.66	16.56	37.97	55.89	46.30	21.87	15.67	5.36	0.18
泽当	0.93	0.81	1.79	0.76	1.69	5.10	8.35	1.52	37.76	32.73	1.43	30.78	12.83	4.41
嘉黎	0.94	0.39	5.41	10.30	18.12	28.59	60.14	92.30	78.39	65.19	58.26	6.14	1.84	1.59
隆子	0.41	-0.20	6.75	12.73	15.38	11.54	26.50	44.12	43.20	38.27	40.36	32.50	14.00	1.57
林芝	0.97	0.61	2.08	1.26	10.78	21.03	27.75	61.76	62.70	48.04	57.31	4.82	13.98	6.94
波密	0.74	0.49	8.03	11.33	64.58	78.03	44.11	70.76	24.41	2.90	53.78	43.52	11.84	12.25

台站	网格降水数据			CRU降水数据				GLDAS降水数据
台站	相对误差/%		相关系数	纳西效率系数	相对误差/%	相关系数	纳西效率系数	相对误差/%	相关系数	纳西效率系数
普兰	356.64	-0.33	-82.77	303.75	0.39	-67.75		162.40	0.18	-16.58
泽当	25.07	0.80	0.09	89.47	0.83	-11.50		19.64	0.44	0.18
波密	-33.27	0.28	-5.26	-22.25	0.58	-1.94		-39.33	0.14	-7.51
林芝	-6.67	0.86	0.61	-7.07	0.87	0.70		-38.14	0.24	-5.97
隆子	106.81	0.54	-18.21	240.68	0.71	-120.93		38.41	0.13	-2.18
定日	78.03	0.84	-6.02	237.36	0.72	-69.10		54.24	-0.05	-2.58
嘉黎	11.14	0.92	0.10	-35.85	0.80	-7.82		-57.55	0.23	-22.04
拉孜	14.5	0.80	0.63	192.83	0.46	-39.80		38.47	-0.16	-0.68
日喀则	-14.38	0.70	0.32	117.19	0.79	-20.19		21.95	0.06	-0.10
江孜	41.91	0.73	-1.94	255.85	0.75	-109.32		39.27	0.24	-1.62
尼木	24.16	0.46	-0.32	143.10	0.64	-37.11		26.76	0.24	-0.37
拉萨	-14.08	0.84	0.27	50.05	0.96	-4.44		19.79	0.36	-0.24
当雄	-7.88	0.93	0.72	17.32	0.83	0.13		-33.43	0.34	-2.94

[1]	ZHANG Ling, ZHANG Jun, DU Liangmin, Gao Yaqi. Influences of precipitation in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River on the key monthly inflow of the Three Gorges Reservoir [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(7): 1117-1125.
[2]	SUN He, SU Fengge. Evaluation of multiple precipitation datasets and their potential utilities in hydrologic modeling over the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(7): 1126-1139.
[3]	SUN Yijie, LIU Xianfeng, REN Zhiyuan, DUAN Yifang. Spatiotemporal changes of droughts and heatwaves on the Loess Plateau during 1960-2016 [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(4): 591-601.
[4]	YIN Shuiqing, WANG Wenting. A review on the stochastic simulation of rainfall process data for soil erosion assessment [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(10): 1747-1757.
[5]	Mingqing MA, Wu YUAN, Quansheng GE, Wen YUAN, Linsheng YANG, Hanqing LI, Meng LI. Big data analysis of social development situation in regions along the Belt and Road [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(7): 1009-1020.
[6]	Yang LIU, Jianshu LV, Jun BI. Characterizing water purification services and quantifying their driving factors in watershed terrestrial ecosystems [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(4): 588-599.
[7]	DING Kaixi, ZHANG Liping, SONG Xiaomeng, SHE Dunxian, XIA Jun. Temporal and spatial features of precipitation and impact of urbanization on precipitation characteristics in flood season in Beijing [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(12): 1917-1932.
[8]	Ming XU, Yuli SHI, Bin WANG. Reconstruction of high resolution monthly precipitation data of the Tibetan Plateau [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(7): 923-932.
[9]	Fangfang ZHANG, Yonghong ZHENG, Guoyan PAN, Shuai YUAN, Fanxi KONG, Yongdong QI, Dan WANG. Climatic significance of tree-ring δ¹⁸O in Shennongjia Mountain [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(7): 946-953.
[10]	Yanxin ZHU, Yanfang SANG. Spatial variability in the seasonal distribution of precipitation on the Tibetan Plateau [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(11): 1533-1544.
[11]	Xuefeng GUAN, Yumei ZENG. Research progress and trends of parallel processing, analysis, and mining of big spatiotemporal data [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(10): 1314-1327.
[12]	Xiaojie WEN, Shunbo YAO, Minjuan ZHAO. Coordinating the development of urbanization and vegetation coverage based on precipitation [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(10): 1352-1361.
[13]	Weishi YANG, Danhuai GUO, Yanling LU, Deqiang WANG, Yinqiu ZHU, Baoxiu ZHANG. Analyzing perception of cultural heritage sites based on big data: A case study of Beijing Central Axis [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(9): 1111-1118.
[14]	Yuhan GUO, Zhonggen WANG, Yuliang WU. Comparison of applications of different reanalyzed precipitation data in the Lhasa River Basin based on HIMS model [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(8): 1033-1039.
[15]	Shen ZHAO, Shaohui CHEN. Spatiotemporal variations of evapotranspiration and potential evapotranspiration in Shandong Province based on station observations and MOD16 [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(8): 1040-1047.

Precision of data in three precipitation datasets of the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 20

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0