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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Permafrost and periglacial processes 2017-04, Vol.28 (2), p.391-404
Main Authors: Zhao, Shu‐Ping, Nan, Zhuo‐Tong, Huang, Ying‐Bing, Zhao, Lin
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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 &amp; 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