自动与人工观测土壤水分差异对比分析

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18110101

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

利用2017年7月28日—2018年9月18日青海省海北牧试站架设的DZN2型自动土壤水分观测仪与人工烘干法平行对比观测土壤水分资料数据,通过对比差值、计算差值概率等相关统计方法,对10~50 cm土壤质量含水率进行逐层分析。结果表明：在研究时段内,海北牧试站自动与人工观测取得的数据随时间的变化趋势基本一致。自动站观测的土壤质量含水率较人工观测值偏低,其中30~50 cm差值相对较小,10~20 cm差值相对较大。根据自动站与人工观测的数据对各层土壤质量含水率进行订正,绝对误差均小于3%,表明海北牧试站自动观测的土壤水分资料基本能代替人工观测,进而为推进农业气象的自动化监测提供一定的技术支撑和理论依据。

关键词: 自动, 人工, 代替, 土壤质量含水率, 差异, 青海

Abstract:

Based on the soil moisture data of the parallel observation of DNZ2 and artificial drying method measured by Haibei Pastoral Test Station in Qinghai from July 28, 2017 to September 18, 2018, by comparing the differences, and calculating the probability of the differences and other relevant statistical methods, we analyzed the soil weight moisture capacity of 10-50 cm by layer. The results showed that: the data obtained by Haibei Pastoral Test Station were consistent with the data obtained by artificial observation during the study period; the soil weight moisture capacity observed by automatic station was lower than that by artificial observation, and the difference between 30 cm and 50 cm was relatively small, while the difference between 10 cm and 20 cm was relatively large; the data revision of the soil weight moisture capacity was conducted based on the data of automatic station and artificial observation, the results showed that all absolute errors were less than 3%, indicating that the soil moisture data by automatic observation in Haibei Pastoral Test Station could basically replace that by artificial observation. The study could provide certain technical support for promoting the automatic monitoring of agricultural meteorology.

Key words: automatic, artificial, replace, soil weight moisture capacity, difference, Qinghai

中图分类号:

S152.7

赵梦凡, 颜亮东. 自动与人工观测土壤水分差异对比分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(7): 90-98.

Zhao Mengfan, Yan Liangdong. Soil Moisture Differences of Automatic and Artificial Observation: Comparative Analysis[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(7): 90-98.

图/表 11

参考文献 21

[1]	郭建平, 高素华, 毛飞 . 中国北方地区干旱化趋势与防御对策研究[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2001,10(3):32-36.
[2]	戴升, 李林, 刘彩红 , 等. 青海夏季干旱特征及其预测模型研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2012,34(6):1433-1440.
[3]	肖莲桂, 石明章, 祁栋林 , 等. 1961—2014年青海湖上游气温变化趋势分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(11):95-100.
[4]	唐敏, 张勃, 张耀宗 , 等. 基于SPEI和SPI指数的青海省东部农业区春夏气象干旱特征的评估[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017,32(6):1029-1042.
[5]	李宇光 . 基于明水县的自动与人工土壤水分观测数据对比分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 201834(21):115-120.
[6]	国家气象局. 农业气象观测规范[M]. 北京: 气象出版社, 1993: 76-88.
[7]	Whalley W R . Considerations on the use of time-domain reflectometry (TDR) for measuring soil water content[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2010,44(1):1-9.
[8]	朱海, 胡顺军, 刘翔 , 等. 不同龄阶梭梭根区土壤水分时空变化特征[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(3):860-867.
[9]	Rudel E . Climate data continuity using automatic weather stations[J]. Proceedings of ICEAWS, 2003.
[10]	Nadolski V L . Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) user’s guide[R]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, United States Navy, 1998.
[11]	Zahumenský I . Guidelines on quality control procedures for data from automatic weather stations[J]. World Meteorological Organization, Switzerland, 2004.
[12]	尚永成 . 环青海湖地区草地生态环境现状及治理对策[J]. 草业与畜牧, 2006(6):27-28.
[13]	Clark D B, Xue Y, Harding R J , et al. Modeling the impact of land surface degradation on the climate of tropical North Africa[J]. Journal of Climate, 2001,14(8):1809-1822.
[14]	任文涛, 杨懿, 张本华 , 等. 温室节点式渗灌自动控制系统设计与实现[J]. 农业工程学报, 2009,25(8):59-63.
[15]	余忠水, 康世昌, 蒋建莹 . 青藏高原夏季夜雨率空间分布及其变化特征[J]. 山地学报, 2011,29(5):627-632.
[16]	于俊伟, 吴战平, 高秋沙 . 贵州的夜雨特征[J]. 贵州气象, 2010,34(2):13-14.
[17]	王宝鉴, 陈旭辉, 陶健红 , 等. 兰州CAWS600-R自动站与人工观测资料对比分析[J]. 气象科技, 2004,32(4):281-285.
[18]	王海英, 黄中雄, 阳擎 . 南宁土壤水分站自动监测土壤湿度数据质量分析[J]. 气象研究与应用, 2008,29(1):78-79.
[19]	董亚龙 . 人工站与自动站测墒差异及原因分析[J]. 陕西气象, 2010(4):34-36.
[20]	周清, 朱保美 . DZN1型自动站与人工测定土壤湿度对比分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013,29(6):108-112.
[21]	谢兰, 高东红 . 非线性回归方法的应用与比较[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2009,39(10):117-121.

	10 cm	20 cm	30 cm	40 cm	50 cm
平均差值	-5.24	-2.74	-1.56	-0.82	0.47
最大正差值	2.69	11.26	8.45	3.28	3.61
最小正差值	0.51	0.08	0.12	0.24	0.08
正差值占比	9.62	20.41	34.69	33.33	68.75
最大负差值	-11.45	-8.27	-8.04	-7.44	-8.68
最小负差值	-0.63	-0.35	-0.08	-0.12	-0.31
负差值占比	90.38	79.59	65.31	66.67	31.25

	10 cm	20 cm	30 cm	40 cm	50 cm
平均差值	-5.24	-2.74	-1.56	-0.82	0.47
最大正差值	2.69	11.26	8.45	3.28	3.61
最小正差值	0.51	0.08	0.12	0.24	0.08
正差值占比	9.62	20.41	34.69	33.33	68.75
最大负差值	-11.45	-8.27	-8.04	-7.44	-8.68
最小负差值	-0.63	-0.35	-0.08	-0.12	-0.31
负差值占比	90.38	79.59	65.31	66.67	31.25

土层深度	0%~1.5%	1.5%~3%	3%~4.5%	4.5%~6%	6%~7.5%	>7.5%	<3%	<4.5%	<6%	<7.5%
10 cm	17.31	9.62	25.00	7.69	11.54	28.85	26.92	51.92	59.62	71.15
20 cm	26.53	24.49	18.37	12.24	12.24	6.12	51.02	69.39	81.63	93.88
30 cm	40.82	20.41	24.49	10.20	0.00	4.08	61.22	85.71	95.92	95.92
40 cm	62.50	20.83	10.42	4.17	2.08	0.00	83.33	93.75	97.92	100.00
50 cm	35.42	43.75	16.67	2.08	0.00	2.08	79.17	95.83	97.92	97.92

土层深度	0%~1.5%	1.5%~3%	3%~4.5%	4.5%~6%	6%~7.5%	>7.5%	<3%	<4.5%	<6%	<7.5%
10 cm	17.31	9.62	25.00	7.69	11.54	28.85	26.92	51.92	59.62	71.15
20 cm	26.53	24.49	18.37	12.24	12.24	6.12	51.02	69.39	81.63	93.88
30 cm	40.82	20.41	24.49	10.20	0.00	4.08	61.22	85.71	95.92	95.92
40 cm	62.50	20.83	10.42	4.17	2.08	0.00	83.33	93.75	97.92	100.00
50 cm	35.42	43.75	16.67	2.08	0.00	2.08	79.17	95.83	97.92	97.92

土层深度/cm	RMSE/%	E/%	RE/%	相关系数
10	6.67	5	-16.52	0.91^**
20	5.25	3.44	-5.75	0.89^**
30	4.23	2.48	-2.65	0.90^**
40	3.64	1.7	-1.26	0.88^**
50	3.92	2.1	3.52	0.81^**