遥感及再分析降水产品在缺资料干旱内陆盆地的适用性评估

doi:10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.220356

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

山区降水较集中,但降水测站多位于山谷或人口密集区,代表性差。遥感和再分析降水产品能提供时空分布连续的数据,不受地形条件限制。柴达木盆地中心属干旱荒漠区,水是制约该区开发的首要条件,其四周属高寒山区,降水相对较多,但降水监测十分薄弱。为获取该区相对精确的降水时空分布信息,本文评估了4套高分辨率降水产品（CMADS、TRMM、GPM和MSWEP）的适用性。首先基于地面站点数据评估它们在不同时空尺度上的精度,并分析它们在柴达木盆地的空间分布和年内分配特征。然后,以盆地东南隅的无测站山区香日德河流域为研究区,利用降水产品驱动SWAT模型来评估它们的分布式水文模拟适用性。结果表明：① MSWEP在年、月尺度上与站点降水的吻合程度最高（R ≥ 0.79,PBIAS = 0.5%）,其次是GPM和TRMM,CMADS精度最低（R ≥ 0.64,PBIAS = 5.8%）;② 从降水精度与站点高程的关系来看,降水产品在相对低海拔区容易高估站点降水,而在相对高海拔区常低估实际降水;③ 在香日德河流域,MSWEP（NSE = 0.64）在基准期（2009—2012年）的径流模拟表现明显好于其它降水产品（NSE = 0.36~0.59）,变化期（2013—2016年）表现最好的是CMADS（NSE = 0.75,其余产品NSE = 0.53~0.68）。本研究可为缺资料干旱山区获取精确的降水时空信息和后续水资源的科学管理与规划提供重要支撑。

关键词: 遥感降水, 再分析降水, 资料稀缺流域, 干旱半干旱, 适用性评估, SWAT, 山区流域, 分布式水文模拟

Abstract:

Precipitation is often concentrated in mountainous regions, but rain gauges mostly cluster in flat valleys or populated regions and thus have poor spatial and temporal consistency. Satellite-based and reanalysis precipitation products can provide precipitation data without being restricted by local terrain condition. However, these products are usually subject to systematic errors, which may vary with time and topographic condition. Thus, it is essential to evaluate and analyze the regional applicability of different precipitation products. The Qaidam Basin is one of the typical alpine arid inland basins in China. Its center part belongs to an arid desert region, and water scarcity hampers the socioeconomic development of this region. The Qaidam basin is surrounded by mountainous regions which are the “water tower” in the world with concentrated precipitation but sparse rain gauge networks. The lack of precise precipitation observation in space and time in mountainous regions can result in unreliable hydrologic modeling and unsustainable water management. To obtain accurate precipitation data, this study collected and evaluated four widely used precipitation products with higher spatiotemporal resolution, including CMADS, TRMM, GPM, and MSWEP. First, we evaluated the suitability of these four precipitation products in the Qaidam Basin against gauge-based precipitation data, using monthly precipitation data from nine meteorological stations and 13 hydrological stations. The spatiotemporal characteristics and the site level errors of the four precipitation products were also analyzed. Then, we concentrated on the typically poorly gauged basin, Xiangride River Basin located in the southeastern Qaidam Basin. The Four precipitation products were input to the semi-distributed hydrological model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), to evaluate the simulated streamflow by comparison with observed streamflow from the gauge data at the watershed outlet (Qianwaebo hydrological station). Results show that: (1) At yearly and monthly scales, MSWEP achieved the highest agreement (R ≥ 0.79, PBIAS = 0.5%) against the observed data, followed by GPM and TRMM, while CMADS had the worst performance (R ≥ 0.64, PBIAS = 5.8%); (2) All precipitation products generally overestimated precipitation at lower elevations and underestimated precipitation at higher elevations; (3) At the basin scale, MSWEP performed best (NSE = 0.64 vs. 0.36~0.59 for other datasets) in the baseline period (2009—2012), while CMADS performed best (NSE = 0.75 vs. 0.53~0.68 for other datasets) in the impacted period (2013—2016). This study can provide important support for obtaining accurate precipitation information and improving water resources management in poorly gauged arid mountainous region.

Key words: satellite-based precipitation, reanalysis precipitation, poorly-gauged basin, arid and semi-arid, applicability evaluation, SWAT, mountainous region, distributed hydrologic modeling

吕爱锋, 亓珊珊. 遥感及再分析降水产品在缺资料干旱内陆盆地的适用性评估[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2022, 24(9): 1817-1834.DOI:10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.220356

LV Aifeng, QI Shanshan. Applicability Analysis of Satellite-based and Reanalysis Precipitation Products in Poorly-Gauged Arid Inland Basins[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2022, 24(9): 1817-1834.DOI:10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.220356

图/表 12

图1

表1

图2

表2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

表3

图9

参考文献 46

[1]	Verma A K, Dash R R, Bhunia P. A review on chemical coagulation/flocculation technologies for removal of colour from textile wastewaters[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012, 93(1):154-168. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.012
[2]	Barros A P. Orographic precipitation, freshwater resources, and climate vulnerabilities in mountainous regions[M]// Climate Vulnerability. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2013:57-78. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-384703-4.00504-9 doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-384703-4.00504-9
[3]	Viviroli D, Dürr H H, Messerli B, et al. Mountains of the world, water towers for humanity: Typology, mapping, and global significance[J]. Water Resources Research, 2007, 43(7):07447. DOI: 10.1029/2006wr005653. doi: 10.1029/2006wr005653
[4]	Wang Y J, Qin D H. Influence of climate change and human activity on water resources in arid region of Northwest China: An overview[J]. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2017, 8(4):268-278. DOI: 10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.004
[5]	彭振华, 李艳忠, 余文君, 等. 遥感降水产品在中国不同气候区的适用性研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2021, 23(7):1296-1311. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2021.200348
	[ Peng Z H, Li Y Z, Yu W J, et al. Research on the applicability of remote sensing precipitation products in different climatic regions of China[J]. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 2021, 23(7):1296-1311. ] DOI: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2021.200348 doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2021.200348
[6]	Tang X P, Zhang J Y, Wang G Q, et al. Evaluating suitability of multiple precipitation products for the Lancang River Basin[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2019, 29(1):37-57. DOI: 10.1007/s11769-019-1015-5 doi: 10.1007/s11769-019-1015-5
[7]	Khatakho R, Talchabhadel R, Thapa B R. Evaluation of different precipitation inputs on streamflow simulation in Himalayan River Basin[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 599:126390. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126390 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126390
[8]	Ajaaj A A, Mishra A K, Khan A A. Evaluation of satellite and gauge-based precipitation products through hydrologic simulation in Tigris River Basin under data-scarce environment[J]. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 2019, 24(3):05018033. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001737 doi: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001737
[9]	Gao X C, Zhu Q, Yang Z Y, et al. Evaluation and hydrological application of CMADS against TRMM 3B42V7, PERSIANN-CDR, NCEP-CFSR, and gauge-based datasets in Xiang River Basin of China[J]. Water, 2018, 10(9):1225. DOI: 10.3390/w10091225 doi: 10.3390/w10091225
[10]	Duan Z, Tuo Y, Liu J Z, et al. Hydrological evaluation of open-access precipitation and air temperature datasets using SWAT in a poorly gauged basin in Ethiopia[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2019, 569:612-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.026
[11]	Pang J Z, Zhang H L, Xu Q X, et al. Hydrological evaluation of open-access precipitation data using SWAT at multiple temporal and spatial scales[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2020, 24(7):3603-3626. DOI: 10.5194/hess-24-3603-2020 doi: 10.5194/hess-24-3603-2020
[12]	Wang X N, Ding Y J, Zhao C C, et al. Similarities and improvements of GPM IMERG upon TRMM 3B42 precipitation product under complex topographic and climatic conditions over Hexi region, Northeastern Tibetan Plateau[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2019, 218:347-363. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.12.011 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.12.011
[13]	Meng C C, Mo X G, Liu S X, et al. Extensive evaluation of IMERG precipitation for both liquid and solid in Yellow River source region[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2021, 256:105570. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105570 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105570
[14]	Hussain Y, Satgé F, Hussain M B, et al. Performance of CMORPH TMPA, and PERSIANN rainfall datasets over plain, mountainous, and glacial regions of Pakistan[J]. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2018, 131(3):1119-1132. DOI: 10.1007/s00704-016-2027-z doi: 10.1007/s00704-016-2027-z
[15]	Musie M, Sen S, Srivastava P. Comparison and evaluation of gridded precipitation datasets for streamflow simulation in data scarce watersheds of Ethiopia[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2019, 579:124168. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124168 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124168
[16]	Omonge P, Feigl M, Olang L, et al. Evaluation of satellite precipitation products for water allocation studies in the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi River Basin of East Africa[J]. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 2022, 39:100983. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100983 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100983
[17]	高瑞, 穆振侠, 彭亮, 等. CFSR、ERA-Interim再分析降水数据在高寒山区径流模拟中的适用性[J]. 水电能源科学, 2017, 35(9):8-12.
	[ Gao R, Mu Z X, Peng L, et al. Application of CFSR and ERA-interim reanalysis data in runoff simulation in high cold alpine areas[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2017, 35(9):8-12. ]
[18]	刘俊, 刘时银, 上官冬辉, 等. CMADS、ITPCAS和TRMM 3B42 3套降水数据集在玉龙喀什河流域的适用性评价[J]. 华北水利水电大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 38(5):28-37.
	[ Liu J, Liu S Y, Shangguan D H, et al. Applicability evaluation of precipitation datasets from CMADS, ITPCAS and TRMM 3B42 in yurungkax river basin[J]. Journal of North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power (Natural Science Edition), 2017, 38(5):28-37. ] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5634.2017.05.004 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5634.2017.05.004
[19]	金鑫, 金彦香. TRMM及GPM降水数据在高寒内陆河流域的准确性评估[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2021, 23(3):395-404. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2021.200054
	[ Jin X, Jin Y X. Accuracy assessment of TRMM and GPM datasets in an alpine inland river basin[J]. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 2021, 23(3):395-404. ]
[20]	Tang G Q, Long D, Hong Y. Systematic anomalies over inland water bodies of high mountain Asia in TRMM precipitation estimates: No longer a problem for the GPM era?[J]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2016, 13(12):1762-1766. DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2016.2606769 doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2016.2606769
[21]	Qin Y X, Chen Z Q, Shen Y, et al. Evaluation of satellite rainfall estimates over the Chinese Mainland[J]. Remote Sensing, 2014, 6(11):11649-11672. doi: 10.3390/rs61111649
[22]	汪梓彤, 李石宝, 张志友. GPM近实时降水产品在青藏高原的多尺度精度评价[J]. 人民黄河, 2021, 43(4):43-49,116.
	[ Wang Z T, Li S B, Zhang Z Y. Multi-scale accuracy evaluation of GPM precipitation products over the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[J]. Yellow River, 2021, 43(4):43-49,116. ] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1379.2021.04.008 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1379.2021.04.008
[23]	Qi S S, Lv A F. Applicability analysis of multiple precipitation products in the Qaidam Basin, Northwestern China[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29(9):12557-12573. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13291-0 doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-13291-0
[24]	李林, 申红艳, 李红梅, 等. 柴达木盆地气候变化的区域显著性及其成因研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(4):641-650.
	[ Li L, Shen H Y, Li H M, et al. Regional differences of climate change in Qaidam Basin and its contributing factors[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(4):641-650. ] DOI: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.04.010 doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.04.010
[25]	Zhu W B, Lű A, Jia S F. Estimation of daily maximum and minimum air temperature using MODIS land surface temperature products[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2013, 130:62-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.034 doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.034
[26]	Lv A F, Qi S S, Wang G S. Multi-model driven by diverse precipitation datasets increases confidence in identifying dominant factors for runoff change in a subbasin of the Qaidam Basin of China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 802:149831. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149831 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149831
[27]	Meng X Y, Wang H. Significance of the China meteorological assimilation driving datasets for the SWAT model (CMADS) of East Asia[J]. Water, 2017, 9(10):765. doi: 10.3390/w9100765
[28]	Huffman G J, Bolvin D T, Nelkin E J, et al. The TRMM Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales[J]. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 2007, 8(1):38-55. DOI: 10.1175/jhm560.1 doi: 10.1175/jhm560.1
[29]	赵安周, 王冬利, 范倩倩, 等. TRMM数据在京津冀地区干旱监测适用性研究[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2020, 31(2):235-242.
	[ Zhao A Z, Wang D L, Fan Q Q, et al. Evaluating the applicability of TRMM data in monitoring drought events in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering, 2020, 31(2):235-242. ] DOI: 10.11705/j.issn.1672-643X.2020.02.35 doi: 10.11705/j.issn.1672-643X.2020.02.35
[30]	Hou A Y, Kakar R K, Neeck S, et al. The global precipitation measurement mission[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2014, 95(5):701-722. DOI: 10.1175/bams-d-13-00164.1 doi: 10.1175/bams-d-13-00164.1
[31]	Beck H E, van Dijk A I J M, Levizzani V, et al. MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25° global gridded precipitation (1979-2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2017, 21(1):589-615. DOI: 10.5194/hess-21-589-2017 doi: 10.5194/hess-21-589-2017
[32]	Beck H E, Wood E F, Pan M, et al. MSWEP V2 global 3-hourly 0.1° precipitation: Methodology and quantitative assessment[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2019, 100(3):473-500. DOI: 10.1175/bams-d-17-0138.1 doi: 10.1175/bams-d-17-0138.1
[33]	Moriasi D N, Arnold J G, Liew M W V, et al. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations[J]. Transactions of the ASABE, 2007, 50(3):885-900. DOI: 10.13031/2013.23153 doi: 10.13031/2013.23153
[34]	Xu S G, Niu Z, Kuang D, et al. Estimating summer precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau with geostatistics and remote sensing[J]. Mountain Research and Development, 2013, 33(4):424-436. DOI: 10.1659/mrd-journal-d-13-00033.1 doi: 10.1659/mrd-journal-d-13-00033.1
[35]	Tian Y D, Peters-Lidard C D. Systematic anomalies over inland water bodies in satellite-based precipitation estimates[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2007, 34(14):14403. DOI: 10.1029/2007GL030787 doi: 10.1029/2007GL030787
[36]	Tang G Q, Ma Y Z, Long D, et al. Evaluation of GPM Day-1 IMERG and TMPA Version-7 legacy products over Mainland China at multiple spatiotemporal scales[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2016, 533:152-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.008
[37]	史继花. 祁连山及周边地区不同下垫面云特性变化及其影响因素[D]. 兰州: 西北师范大学, 2021.
	[ Shi J H. Variation and influencing factors of cloud characteristics on different underlying surfaces in the Qilian Mountains and surrounding areas[D]. Lanzhou: Northwest Normal University, 2021. ]
[38]	Le M H, Lakshmi V, Bolten J, et al. Adequacy of satellite-derived precipitation estimate for hydrological modeling in Vietnam Basins[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2020, 586:124820. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124820. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124820
[39]	Saemian P, Hosseini-Moghari S M, Fatehi I, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of precipitation datasets over Iran[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 603:127054. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127054 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127054
[40]	Immerzeel W W, Wanders N, Lutz A F, et al. Reconciling high-altitude precipitation in the upper Indus Basin with glacier mass balances and runoff[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2015, 19(11):4673-4687. DOI: 10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015 doi: 10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015
[41]	Lin Q, Chen J, Chen D L, et al. Impacts of bias-corrected ERA5 initial snow depth on dynamical downscaling simulations for the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2021, 126(23):035625. DOI: 10.1029/2021jd035625 doi: 10.1029/2021jd035625
[42]	Tang G Q, Clark M P, Papalexiou S M, et al. Have satellite precipitation products improved over last two decades? A comprehensive comparison of GPM IMERG with nine satellite and reanalysis datasets[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 240:111697. DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111697 doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111697
[43]	Zhang L P, Lan P, Qin G H, et al. Evaluation of three gridded precipitation products to quantify water inputs over complex mountainous terrain of Western China[J]. Remote Sensing, 2021, 13(19):3795. DOI: 10.3390/rs13193795 doi: 10.3390/rs13193795
[44]	黄琦, 覃光华, 王瑞敏, 等. 基于MSWEP的祁连山地区降水空间分布特性解析[J]. 水利学报, 2020, 51(2):232-244.
	[ Huang Q, Qin G H, Wang R M, et al. Analysis of spatial distribution characteristics of precipitation in Qilian Mountains Based on MSWEP[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2020, 51(2):232-244. ] DOI: 10.13243/j.cnki.slxb.20190876 doi: 10.13243/j.cnki.slxb.20190876
[45]	Bai L, Wen Y Q, Shi C X, et al. Which precipitation product works best in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, multi-source blended data, global/regional reanalysis data, or satellite retrieved precipitation data?[J]. Remote Sensing, 2020, 12(4):683. DOI: 10.3390/rs12040683 doi: 10.3390/rs12040683
[46]	陈汉清, 鹿德凯, 周泽慧, 等. GPM降水产品评估研究综述[J]. 水资源保护, 2019, 35(1):27-34.
	[ Chen H Q, Lu D K, Zhou Z H, et al. An overview of assessments on global precipitation measurement (GPM) precipitation products[J]. Water Resources Protection, 2019, 35(1):27-34. ] DOI: 10.3880/j.issn.1004-6933.2019.01.006 doi: 10.3880/j.issn.1004-6933.2019.01.006

类别	站名	纬度/°N	经度/°E	海拔/m	月均降水量/mm
气象站	大柴旦	37.85	95.35	3179	8.4
	德令哈	37.38	97.36	3001	19.5
	都兰	36.29	98.09	3185	20.1
	格尔木	36.42	94.90	2809	4.2
	冷湖	38.74	93.33	2765	1.8
	茫崖	38.25	90.85	2938	4.4
	诺木洪	36.43	96.42	2767	5.1
	乌兰	36.93	98.48	2980	19.6
	小灶火	36.80	93.68	2779	2.6
水文站	察汗河	36.94	98.48	2957	39.3
	察汗乌苏	36.24	98.11	3240	20.9
	德令哈（三）	37.38	97.43	3025	21.9
	都兰雨量站	36.29	98.09	3194	21.2
	尕海	37.22	97.44	2860	13.2
	怀头他拉	37.34	96.73	2848	9.2
	上尕巴	36.99	98.57	3135	28.4
	夏日哈	36.40	98.12	3104	23.3
	香日德	35.91	97.98	3199	23.9
	纳赤台	35.87	94.57	3559	16.3
	柯尔	35.94	97.70	3249	26.3
	格尔木（四）	36.31	94.78	2919	5.4
	千瓦鄂博	35.75	98.13	3453	14.0

数据类型	数据源	分辨率	获取途径
DEM	SRTM	90 m	http://www.gscloud.cn/
土地利用数据	Landsat	30 m	http://data.tpdc.ac.cn
土壤类型数据	HWSD	1 km	http://westdc.westgis.ac.cn/
径流观测数据	千瓦鄂博水文站	月尺度（1956—2016年）	青海省水文局

	基准期				变化期
	CMADS	TRMM	GPM	MSWEP	CMADS	TRMM	GPM	MSWEP
CN2	39.45	69.04	41.46	38.18	59.60	63.49	61.64	35.02
ESCO	0.34	0.58	0.57	0.66	0.02	0.18	0.83	0.71
EPCO	0.48	0.61	0.64	0.58	0.97	0.16	0.02	0.73
OV_N	0.47	0.15	0.41	0.59	0.36	0.20	0.57	0.23
CH_N2	0.02	0.47	0.34	0.32	0.22	0.20	0.04	0.31
CH_K2	9.55	64.55	74.94	6.41	20.57	18.03	149.07	53.26
ALPHA_BF	1.00	1.00	0.31	0.09	1.00	1.00	0.32	0.99
GW_DELAY	292.36	499.14	192.72	448.97	410.04	499.97	119.52	499.69
RCHRG_DP	0.63	0.61	0.55	0.24	0.45	0.67	0.27	0.34
GW_REVAP	0.05	0.03	0.09	0.14	0.10	0.04	0.19	0.14
GW_SPYLD	0.20	0.26	0.16	0.30	0.11	0.24	0.35	0.30
SOL_AWC	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.02
SOL_K	52.06	24.38	43.17	21.39	27.94	20.85	32.85	18.87
SURLAG	3.60	10.06	5.82	5.04	7.27	11.11	3.15	11.49
NSE	0.35	0.58	0.51	0.64	0.75	0.68	0.53	0.64
PBIAS/%	0	0	0	0	0.1	-0.1	0	-0.1