中国农业气象 ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10): 609-621.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6362.2020.10.001

• 农业气候资源与气候变化栏目 •    下一篇

中国东部暖温带刺槐物候模型比较

于裴洋,同小娟,李俊,张静茹,刘沛荣   

  1. 1.北京林业大学生态与自然保护学院,北京 100083;2.中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所陆地水循环及地表过程重点实验室,北京 100101
  • 收稿日期:2020-06-23 出版日期:2020-10-20 发布日期:2020-10-15
  • 通讯作者: 同小娟,E-mail:tongxj@bjfu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:于裴洋,E-mail:ypy0913@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(31872703;31570617)

Comparison of Phenological Models of Robinia pseudoacacia (L.) in the Warm- temperate Region of Eastern China

YU Pei-yang, TONG Xiao-juan, LI Jun, ZHANG Jing-ru, LIU Pei-rong   

  1. 1.  School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China;2.  Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Nature Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101
  • Received:2020-06-23 Online:2020-10-20 Published:2020-10-15

摘要: 植被物候是陆地生态系统对气候变化响应的一个有力指标,其对水、碳交换和能量平衡发挥着重要作用。在全球气候变暖背景下,植被物候变化规律及预测植物物候期成为研究热点。本研究基于中国东部暖温带10个观测点的气象数据和刺槐地面物候观测资料,利用模拟退火算法对SW、Unichill和DNGDD三种模型的各项参数进行优化,对刺槐春秋季物候期(叶芽开放期、展叶始期、开花始期和叶变色期)进行模拟,通过内部检验对比分析SW、Unichill和DNGDD模型对春、秋季物候期的模拟效果,以选择出最适合预测刺槐物候期的模型。结果表明,刺槐4个主要物候期与同期各项气温平均值间均呈极显著负相关关系。利用模拟退火法对SW、Unichill和DNGDD模型进行参数估计得到的数值符合刺槐的生长发育规律。与DNGDD模型和Unichill模型相比,SW模型对春季物候期模拟效果较好,其模拟的叶芽开放期、展叶始期和开花始期对应的交叉检验方差解释量R2分别为0.807、0.876和0.907,均方根误差RMSE为6.0、4.6和4.4d。DNGDD模型则对秋季物候(叶变色期)模拟效果较好,其模拟的叶变色期的交叉检验方差解释量R2为0.580,RMSE为13.4d。因此可以得出,SW模型适合对刺槐春季物候(叶芽开放期、展叶始期、开花始期)的模拟,DNGDD模型则较适用于模拟秋季物候(叶变色期)。

关键词: 刺槐, 物候模型, 春季物候, 秋季物候, 积温, 退火算法

Abstract: Vegetation phenology is a powerful indicator of the response of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change and plays an important role in water, carbon exchange and energy balance. Under the background of global warming, the changes of vegetation phenology and simulating the phenological phase of plants have been paid much attention. Up to date, the performance of most phenolgy models on spring phenolgy is better, but the simulated autumn phenology has been less accurate. In this study, meteorological data and surface phenological data (leaf bud opening date, first leaf date, first flowering date and leaf coloring date) at 10 sites were selected as the input of the SW, Unichill and DNGDD models, which were used to simulate the phenological phase of Robinia pseudoacacia(L.). The objectives were to examine the performace of SW, Unichill and DNGDD models simulating spring and autumn phenology, and give a guide on optimum the parameters of phenology models. The odd-year data of the sites were used as the internal test, and the even-year data were used as the cross test. The simulation values of three models were compared with the observed ones for analysis to find the best one to predict vegetation phenology. The simulated annealing algorithm was applied to optimum the parameters of SW, Unichill and DNGDD models. The simulated spring and autumn phenology was compared with the measured one, and evaluate the modelling to select the best one to predict vegetation phenology.The results showed that the leaf bud opening, the first leaf, the first flowering dates of Robinia pseudoacacia (L.) were significantly negatively correlated with average temperature in the same period. Average temperature was the main factor affecting phenology. The phenological period in spring had the strongest correlation with mean air temperature, but not significant correlation with mean daily minimum temperature and mean daily maximum temperature. Therefore, compared with Unichill and DNGDD models, SW performed better in simulating spring phenology. The variance interpretation (R2) of cross test of SW model simulating the leaf bud opening, the first leaf and the first flowering dates were 0.807, 0.876 and 0.907 separately and the root mean square error (RMSE) 6.0, 4.6 and 4.4 days. Mean temperature in the daytime and night mean temperature in autumn had different influences on phenology. There was a large deviation when leaf coloring date was simulated only using average temperature. Average temperature was replaced by daily minmum and maximum temperature in DNGDD model. DNGDD model performed well in comparison with SW model when the leaf coloring date in autumn was simulated, and R2 of cross check was 0.580. Therefore, SW model is the best one to simulat the spring phenological phases, while DNGDD model perforemed well in simulating the autumn phenological phase.

Key words: Robinia pseudoacacia, Phenology model, Spring phenology, Autumn phenology, Integrated temperature, Simulated annealing