Loading…
The Application and Evaluation of Simple Permafrost Distribution Models on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau
The performance of simple permafrost distribution models widely used on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) has not been fully evaluated. In this study, two empirical models (the elevation model and mean annual ground temperature model) and three semi‐physical models (the surface frost number model, the...
Saved in:
Published in: | Permafrost and periglacial processes 2017-04, Vol.28 (2), p.391-404 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3169-a1aeeaec7c4216271a1f7c3ea64995fd81c5ea953f35948a88981ad9651cd1ee3 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 404 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 391 |
container_title | Permafrost and periglacial processes |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Zhao, Shu‐Ping Nan, Zhuo‐Tong Huang, Ying‐Bing Zhao, Lin |
description | The performance of simple permafrost distribution models widely used on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) has not been fully evaluated. In this study, two empirical models (the elevation model and mean annual ground temperature model) and three semi‐physical models (the surface frost number model, the temperature at the top of permafrost model and the Kudryavtsev model) were investigated. The simulation results from the models were compared to each other and validated against existing permafrost maps of the entire QTP and in three representative areas investigated in the field. The models generally overestimated permafrost distribution in the investigated areas, but they captured the broad characteristics of permafrost distribution on the entire QTP, and performed best in areas with colder, continuous permafrost. Large variations in performance occurred at elevations of 3800–4500 m asl and in areas with thermally unstable permafrost. The two empirical models performed best in areas where permafrost is strongly controlled by elevation, such as eastern QTP. In contrast, the three semi‐physical models were better in southern island permafrost areas with relatively flat terrain, where local factors considerably impact the distribution of permafrost. Model performance could be enhanced by explicitly considering the effects of elevation zones and regional conditions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ppp.1939 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1891874501</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1891874501</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3169-a1aeeaec7c4216271a1f7c3ea64995fd81c5ea953f35948a88981ad9651cd1ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkM1Kw0AUhYMoWKvgIwTcuEmd25lJZpal1h-oGLGuw21yY6dMfswkSne-g2_ok5hYV67OufBxuHyedw5sAoxNr-q6noDm-sAbAdM6AMnZ4dCFDMJIsGPvxLktY0xxECMvX23In9W1NSm2pip9LDN_8Y62259V7j-borbkx9QUmDeVa_1r49rGrLtf4qHKyDq_b20_9WTK1w2a78-vlVlT68cWW8Lu1DvK0To6-8ux93KzWM3vguXj7f18tgyQQ6gDBCRCSqNUTCGcRoCQRyknDIXWMs8UpJJQS55zqYVCpbQCzHQoIc2AiI-9y_1u3VRvHbk2KYxLyVosqepcAkqDioRk0KMX_9Bt1TVl_11PKSFkBJL1VLCnPoylXVI3psBmlwBLBttJbzsZbCdxHA_JfwAwNnVL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1884457150</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Application and Evaluation of Simple Permafrost Distribution Models on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Zhao, Shu‐Ping ; Nan, Zhuo‐Tong ; Huang, Ying‐Bing ; Zhao, Lin</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Shu‐Ping ; Nan, Zhuo‐Tong ; Huang, Ying‐Bing ; Zhao, Lin</creatorcontrib><description>The performance of simple permafrost distribution models widely used on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) has not been fully evaluated. In this study, two empirical models (the elevation model and mean annual ground temperature model) and three semi‐physical models (the surface frost number model, the temperature at the top of permafrost model and the Kudryavtsev model) were investigated. The simulation results from the models were compared to each other and validated against existing permafrost maps of the entire QTP and in three representative areas investigated in the field. The models generally overestimated permafrost distribution in the investigated areas, but they captured the broad characteristics of permafrost distribution on the entire QTP, and performed best in areas with colder, continuous permafrost. Large variations in performance occurred at elevations of 3800–4500 m asl and in areas with thermally unstable permafrost. The two empirical models performed best in areas where permafrost is strongly controlled by elevation, such as eastern QTP. In contrast, the three semi‐physical models were better in southern island permafrost areas with relatively flat terrain, where local factors considerably impact the distribution of permafrost. Model performance could be enhanced by explicitly considering the effects of elevation zones and regional conditions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1045-6740</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1530</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ppp.1939</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PEPPED</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>model evaluation ; permafrost distribution ; permafrost mapping ; Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP)</subject><ispartof>Permafrost and periglacial processes, 2017-04, Vol.28 (2), p.391-404</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3169-a1aeeaec7c4216271a1f7c3ea64995fd81c5ea953f35948a88981ad9651cd1ee3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Shu‐Ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nan, Zhuo‐Tong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Ying‐Bing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Lin</creatorcontrib><title>The Application and Evaluation of Simple Permafrost Distribution Models on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau</title><title>Permafrost and periglacial processes</title><description>The performance of simple permafrost distribution models widely used on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) has not been fully evaluated. In this study, two empirical models (the elevation model and mean annual ground temperature model) and three semi‐physical models (the surface frost number model, the temperature at the top of permafrost model and the Kudryavtsev model) were investigated. The simulation results from the models were compared to each other and validated against existing permafrost maps of the entire QTP and in three representative areas investigated in the field. The models generally overestimated permafrost distribution in the investigated areas, but they captured the broad characteristics of permafrost distribution on the entire QTP, and performed best in areas with colder, continuous permafrost. Large variations in performance occurred at elevations of 3800–4500 m asl and in areas with thermally unstable permafrost. The two empirical models performed best in areas where permafrost is strongly controlled by elevation, such as eastern QTP. In contrast, the three semi‐physical models were better in southern island permafrost areas with relatively flat terrain, where local factors considerably impact the distribution of permafrost. Model performance could be enhanced by explicitly considering the effects of elevation zones and regional conditions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>model evaluation</subject><subject>permafrost distribution</subject><subject>permafrost mapping</subject><subject>Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP)</subject><issn>1045-6740</issn><issn>1099-1530</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkM1Kw0AUhYMoWKvgIwTcuEmd25lJZpal1h-oGLGuw21yY6dMfswkSne-g2_ok5hYV67OufBxuHyedw5sAoxNr-q6noDm-sAbAdM6AMnZ4dCFDMJIsGPvxLktY0xxECMvX23In9W1NSm2pip9LDN_8Y62259V7j-borbkx9QUmDeVa_1r49rGrLtf4qHKyDq_b20_9WTK1w2a78-vlVlT68cWW8Lu1DvK0To6-8ux93KzWM3vguXj7f18tgyQQ6gDBCRCSqNUTCGcRoCQRyknDIXWMs8UpJJQS55zqYVCpbQCzHQoIc2AiI-9y_1u3VRvHbk2KYxLyVosqepcAkqDioRk0KMX_9Bt1TVl_11PKSFkBJL1VLCnPoylXVI3psBmlwBLBttJbzsZbCdxHA_JfwAwNnVL</recordid><startdate>201704</startdate><enddate>201704</enddate><creator>Zhao, Shu‐Ping</creator><creator>Nan, Zhuo‐Tong</creator><creator>Huang, Ying‐Bing</creator><creator>Zhao, Lin</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201704</creationdate><title>The Application and Evaluation of Simple Permafrost Distribution Models on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau</title><author>Zhao, Shu‐Ping ; Nan, Zhuo‐Tong ; Huang, Ying‐Bing ; Zhao, Lin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3169-a1aeeaec7c4216271a1f7c3ea64995fd81c5ea953f35948a88981ad9651cd1ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>model evaluation</topic><topic>permafrost distribution</topic><topic>permafrost mapping</topic><topic>Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Shu‐Ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nan, Zhuo‐Tong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Ying‐Bing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Lin</creatorcontrib><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Permafrost and periglacial processes</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhao, Shu‐Ping</au><au>Nan, Zhuo‐Tong</au><au>Huang, Ying‐Bing</au><au>Zhao, Lin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Application and Evaluation of Simple Permafrost Distribution Models on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau</atitle><jtitle>Permafrost and periglacial processes</jtitle><date>2017-04</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>391</spage><epage>404</epage><pages>391-404</pages><issn>1045-6740</issn><eissn>1099-1530</eissn><coden>PEPPED</coden><abstract>The performance of simple permafrost distribution models widely used on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) has not been fully evaluated. In this study, two empirical models (the elevation model and mean annual ground temperature model) and three semi‐physical models (the surface frost number model, the temperature at the top of permafrost model and the Kudryavtsev model) were investigated. The simulation results from the models were compared to each other and validated against existing permafrost maps of the entire QTP and in three representative areas investigated in the field. The models generally overestimated permafrost distribution in the investigated areas, but they captured the broad characteristics of permafrost distribution on the entire QTP, and performed best in areas with colder, continuous permafrost. Large variations in performance occurred at elevations of 3800–4500 m asl and in areas with thermally unstable permafrost. The two empirical models performed best in areas where permafrost is strongly controlled by elevation, such as eastern QTP. In contrast, the three semi‐physical models were better in southern island permafrost areas with relatively flat terrain, where local factors considerably impact the distribution of permafrost. Model performance could be enhanced by explicitly considering the effects of elevation zones and regional conditions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/ppp.1939</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1045-6740 |
ispartof | Permafrost and periglacial processes, 2017-04, Vol.28 (2), p.391-404 |
issn | 1045-6740 1099-1530 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1891874501 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | model evaluation permafrost distribution permafrost mapping Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) |
title | The Application and Evaluation of Simple Permafrost Distribution Models on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T07%3A57%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Application%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Simple%20Permafrost%20Distribution%20Models%20on%20the%20Qinghai%E2%80%93Tibet%20Plateau&rft.jtitle=Permafrost%20and%20periglacial%20processes&rft.au=Zhao,%20Shu%E2%80%90Ping&rft.date=2017-04&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=391&rft.epage=404&rft.pages=391-404&rft.issn=1045-6740&rft.eissn=1099-1530&rft.coden=PEPPED&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ppp.1939&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E1891874501%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3169-a1aeeaec7c4216271a1f7c3ea64995fd81c5ea953f35948a88981ad9651cd1ee3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1884457150&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |