次降雨时空分布对流域产流产沙的影响

doi:10.16843/j.sswc.2023.04.009

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要降雨时空变异性对流域产流产沙过程具有重要影响。选取数据完整性较好、分辨率较高的美国俄克拉荷马州柯尔堡（Fort Cobb）流域为研究对象，基于高时空分辨率次降雨空间分布及移动特征的量化分析，探究降雨雨型、降雨强度、时空变异等对流域产流产沙过程的影响。结果表明：依据降雨特征（降雨量、降雨历时，30 min最大降雨强度）可将Fort Cobb流域的雨型划分为4类（A型、B型、C型和D型），其中，降雨量和30 min最大降雨强度较小的A型、B型降雨最为常见；C型降雨的30 min最大降雨强度最大，是造成该流域水土流失的主要类型。对于4种雨型，流域产流量与降雨量，产沙量与次降雨侵蚀力皆呈显著正相关关系（P<0.05）；单位降雨量导致的流域产流量表现为C型>A型>D型>B型；相同次降雨侵蚀力条件下，不同雨型导致的流域产沙量则表现为D型>B型>A型>C型。流域降雨量空间分布呈现由东南向西北减少的趋势，集中分布在流域东部的降雨量占总降雨量38.96%。降雨移动特征分析表明，流域内向下游移动和顺时针移动的降雨场次最多，发生频次为51.16%，2类降雨量占总量的57.94%，其导致的流域产流量占总量的81.61%，产沙量占总量的84.84%。降雨过程相似时，次降雨移动特征对流域产流产沙作用存在明显差异。降雨由上游至下游移动，流域水文响应速度慢，流量、含沙量峰值高；而降雨由下游至上游移动，流域水文响应速度快，且流量、含沙量峰值较低。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	孟泽坤
	王彬
	Daniel Moriasi

关键词 ：次降雨, 空间尺度效应, 时空分布, 产流产沙, 流域尺度

Abstract：[Background] There are many factors affecting the hydrological response at watershed scale. In recent years, more and more studies have been conducted on the effects of spatio-temporal patterns of storm on hydrological response. Most of these studies are based on mathematical models because of the scarcity of high-resolution data. Many research indicated that spatio-temporal patterns of storm events play an important role in runoff discharge and sediment yield at watershed scale. Due to the good data integrity and high resolution, the Fort Cobb watershed in Oklahoma state, USA, was selected as the research site.[Methods] Based on high-resolution meteorological and hydrological data, this study quantified and traced the storm path and spatial distribution of 43 storms in Fort Cobb watershed by using K-means clustering method and Kriging interpolation method. And the effects of storm pattern, rainfall intensity and spatio-temporal characteristics on runoff discharge and sediment yield of Fort Cobb watershed were studied.[Results] 1) The 43 storm events were classified into 4 patterns. Type A, with small rainfall, variable rainfall duration and medium maximum 30-min rainfall intensity. Type B, with small rainfall, variable rainfall duration and small maximum 30-min rainfall intensity. Type C, with medium rainfall, short rainfall duration and medium maximum 30-min rainfall intensity. Type D, with large rainfall, short rainfall duration, and medium maximum 30-min rainfall intensity. Storms with small rainfall and low maximum 30-min rainfall intensity were the commonest pattern. Type C was the main pattern that caused soil erosion in the research area. 2) The runoff discharge and sediment yield were significantly and positively correlated with rainfall and rainfall erosivity (P<0.05) even if under different storm patterns (P<0.05). When the rainfall was the same,different types of storms leads to runoff as C>A>D>B. When the value of rainfall erosivity was equal, different types of storms caused different sediment yield in this area, and the amount from the highest to the lowest was D>B>A>C. 3) The spatial difference of storms was relatively huge. The rainfall was much more in the east and the south than that in the west and the north. The rainfall in the northeast and the southeast accounted for 38.96% of the total. 4) The storms moving downstream and clockwise accounted for the most amount of rainfall of 57.94% and 81.61% runoff discharge and 84.84% sediment yield. Most of storms started from the northwest of the basin and moved downstream. When the process of rainfall was similar, the storm moving upstream had a fast hydrological response and a low peak flow and sediment yield. On the contrary, the storm moving downstream had a slow hydrological response and a high runoff and sediment yield.[Conclusions] The spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of storms have impact on the hydrological response of watershed, which is significantly reflected in the hydrological process and sediment yield. This result may provide a basis for understanding the complex interactions between rainfall variability and catchment heterogeneity.

Key words： single storm spatial scale effect spatio-temporal patterns runoff and sediment yield watershed scale

收稿日期: 2021-08-16

PACS:

S157

基金资助:国家自然科学基金"黑土坡耕地冻融-水力复合侵蚀动力过程与量化表征"（41977060）；国家重点研发计划"坡面复合侵蚀的水土保持措施防蚀机理"（2016YFE0202900）；重庆市科技兴林项目"重庆防护林林分结构质量精准提升技术研究"（渝林科研2020-10）

通讯作者: 王彬(1983-),男,教授,博士生导师。主要研究方向:水土保持与土壤侵蚀。E-mail:wangbin1836@bjfu.edu.cn E-mail: wangbin1836@bjfu.edu.cn

作者简介: 孟泽坤(1998-),女,博士研究生。主要研究方向:土壤侵蚀。E-mail:1052149897@qq.com

引用本文:

孟泽坤, 王彬, Daniel Moriasi. 次降雨时空分布对流域产流产沙的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2023, 21(4): 69-78.
MENG Zekun, WANG Bin, Daniel Moriasi. Effects of the spatio-temporal pattern of single storm on the runoff and sediment yield at watershed scale. SSWC, 2023, 21(4): 69-78.

链接本文:

http://journal12.magtechjournal.com/Jweb_stbc/CN/10.16843/j.sswc.2023.04.009 或 http://journal12.magtechjournal.com/Jweb_stbc/CN/Y2023/V21/I4/69

[1]	SIGAROODI S K,CHEN Qiuwen. Effects and consideration of storm movement in rainfall-runoff modelling at the basin scale[J]. Hydrology and Earth System. Sciences, 2016, 20(12):5063
[2]	YEN B C,CHOW V T.A laboratory study of surface runoff due to moving rainstorms[J].Water Resource, 1969, 5(5):989.
[3]	冉启华,富强,苏丹阳,等.降雨移动方向对坡面径流的影响机理[J].浙江大学学报(工学版),2009,43(10):1915. RAN Qihua, FU Qiang, SU Danyang, et al.Impact of rainfall-movement direction on hillslope runoff generation[J].Journal of Zhejiang University(Engineering Science),2009,43(10):1915.
[4]	冉启华,梁宁,钱群,等.移动降雨时空分布对坡面产流的影响[J].清华大学学报(自然科学版),2013,53(5):636. RAN Qihua, LIANG Ning, QIAN Qun, et al. Investigation of hillslope runoff due to moving storms in flume-scale experiments[J].Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology),2013,53(5):636.
[5]	De LIMA J, TAVARES P, SINGH V P, et al. Investigating the nonlinear response of soil loss to storm direction using a circular soil flume[J]. Geoderma, 2009, 152(1/2):9.
[6]	冉启华,史致男,赵建均,等.移动降雨条件下结皮对坡面产沙的影响机理[J].清华大学学报(自然科学版),2012,52(6):821. RAN Qihua, SHI Zhinan, ZHAO Jianjun, et al. Impact of moving rainfall on soil erosion based on crust characteristics[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology),2012,52(6):821.
[7]	ROBERTS M C, KLINGEMANl P C. The influence of landform and precipitation parameters on flood hydrographs[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 1970, 11(4):393.
[8]	SURKAN A J. Simulation of storm velocity effects on flow from distributed channel networks[J]. Water Resources Research, 1974, 10(6):1149.
[9]	SARGENT D M. Investigation into the effects of storm movement on the design of urban drainage systems:Part 1[J]. Public Health Engineer, 1981, 9(4):201.
[10]	SARGENT D M. An investigation into the effects of storm movement on the design of urban drainage systems:Part 2. Probability analysis[J]. Public Health Engineer, 1982, 10(2):111.
[11]	JENSEN M. Runoff pattern and peak flows from moving block rains based on a linear time-area curve[J]. Hydrology Research, 1984, 15(3):155.
[12]	SINGH V P. Effect of the duration and direction of storm movement on infiltrating planar flow with full areal coverage[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2002, 16(7):1479.
[13]	VELDUIS M T, ZHOUZhengzheng, YANGLong, et al. The role of storm scale, position and movement in controlling urban flood response[J]. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2018, 22(1):417.
[14]	李占斌.黄土地区小流域次暴雨侵蚀产沙研究[J].西安理工大学学报,1996, 12(3):177. LI Zhanbin. Study on small watershed single storm erosion sediment yield in loess region[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Technology,1996,12(3):177.
[15]	李占斌,靳项,符素华.窟野河流域暴雨侵蚀产沙研究[J].西安理工大学学报,1997, 13(1):12. LI Zhanbin, JIN Xiang, FU Suhua.A study on storm runoff sediment field in Kuyehe river watershed[J].Journal of Xi'an University of Technology,1997, 13(1):12.
[16]	MORIASI D N, STARKS P J, STEINER J L, et al. Upper Washita river experimental watersheds:Physiography data[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2014, 43(4):1298.
[17]	王万忠.黄土地区降雨特性与土壤流失关系的研究Ⅲ-关于侵蚀性降雨的标准问题[J].水土保持通报,1984, 15(2):58. WANG Wanzhong. Study on the relations between rainfall characteristics and loss of soil in loess region[J].Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,1984, 15(2):58.
[18]	张真真,单延功,郭红丽,等.降雨特征对低山丘陵区典型小流域水土流失的影响[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(4):32. ZHANG Zhenzhen, SHAN Yangong, GUO Hongli, et al. Effects of rainfall characteristics on soil and water loss of small watershed in low mountains and hills area[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2020,40(4):32.
[19]	张志旭,宋孝玉,李蓝君,等.黄土高原沟壑区典型草地小流域水沙特征对不同雨型的响应[J].干旱区资源与环境,2020,34(9):108. ZHANG Zhixu, SONG Xiaoyu, LI Lanjun, et al. Response of water and sediment characteristics to different rainfall regime in a typical grassland watershed in the gully region of the Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment,2020,34(9):108.
[20]	秦伟,左长清,晏清洪,等.红壤裸露坡地次降雨土壤侵蚀规律[J].农业工程学报,2015,31(2):124. QIN Wei, ZUO Changqing, YAN Qinghong, et al. Regularity of individual rainfall soil erosion in bare slope land of red soil[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2015, 31(2):124.
[21]	MOHAMADI M A, KAVIAN A. Effects of rainfall patterns on runoff and soil erosion in field plots[J]. International Soil & Water Conservation Research, 2015, 3(4):273.
[22]	王小博,朱永清,吴宜进,等.不同植被下降雨类型对红壤坡地土壤侵蚀特征的影响[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(2):6. WANG Xiaobo, ZHU Yongqing, WU Yijin, et al. Effects of rainfall regimes on soil erosion on red soil slopes under different vegetation types[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017,24(2):6.
[23]	倪九派,高明,魏朝富,等.基于水系改进的高分辨率DEM和GEOWEPP的流域产沙量估算及其空间尺度效应研究[J].土壤学报,2010,47(1):1. NI Jiupai, GAO Ming, WEI Chaofu, et al. Watershed sediment yield and effect of spatial scale based on high resolution digital elevation model and Geowepp[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2010,47(1):1.
[24]	卢金发.黄河中游流域产沙量随降雨变化的区域分异[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(3):27. LU Jinfa. Response of sediment yield to climate in middle Yellow River basin[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2001, 15(3):27.
[25]	李照会.基于DEM的山丘区小流域特征研究及应用[D].北京:中国水利水电科学研究院,2019:57. LI Zhaohui. Study and application of small watershed characteristics in hilly area based on DEM[D].Beijing:China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, 2019:57.
[26]	LOPES V L. On the effect of uncertainty in spatial distribution of rainfall on catchment modelling[J].Catena, 1996,28(1/2):107.