| Literature DB >> 30413121 |
Xuerui Gao1, Ai Wang2, Yong Zhao3, Xining Zhao4, Miao Sun5, Junkai Du6, Chengcheng Gang7.
Abstract
With the implementation of the Grain for Green Project, the apple plantation area is increasing in Loess Plateau. However, due to severe water scarcity, the sustainability of apple tree growth is threatened. In this paper, we used meteorological data (1990⁻2013) and forecasted climate data (2019⁻2050) to estimate water demand and establish a water suitability model to study the water balance between available water and water consumption of the apple trees. The results show that: (i) the order of the average water demand of apple plantation in each subarea is Shaanxi Province > Yuncheng area > Gansu Province > Sanmenxia Region, ranging from 500 to 950 mm; (ii) the temporal variability of water suitability from 1990 to 2013 is large, and the higher values are concentrated in the late growth stage of the apple trees and the lower values are concentrated in the early growth stage; (iii) the temporal and spatial distribution of water suitability is relatively stable and even in the Loess Plateau in the period of 2019⁻2050; (iv) the water suitability is mainly affected by effective precipitation and reference evapotranspiration and the reference evapotranspiration is mainly affected by the solar radiation (36%) and average temperature (38%). Furthermore, due to the joint influence of precipitation increases and solar radiation (average temperature) increases, the future water suitability of the apple plantation area in the Loess Plateau is showing a non-significant downward trend under RCP4.5 scenario.Entities:
Keywords: apple plantation; climate change; the Loess Plateau; water balance; water suitability
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30413121 PMCID: PMC6265787 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15112504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of suitable planting areas for apple trees in the Loess Plateau.
Figure 2Technical roadmap of this study.
The average growth period of apple tree in different subareas (month-day).
| Growth Period | Henan | Shaanxi | Shanxi | Gansu |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germination | 03-08 | 03-11 | 03-18 | 04-07 |
| Green Tip | 03-12 | 03-15 | 03-22 | 04-11 |
| Half-Inch Green | 03-20 | 03-24 | 03-30 | 04-16 |
| Pink | 04-01 | 04-06 | 04-14 | 04-24 |
| Full Bloom | 04-13 | 04-17 | 04-19 | 04-27 |
| Post-Bloom | 04-22 | 04-28 | 04-27 | 05-04 |
| Fruit Present | 10-02 | 10-08 | 10-09 | 09-17 |
| Beginning of leaf | 10-27 | 10-31 | 10-30 | 10-02 |
| End of leaf | 11-04 | 11-10 | 11-09 | 10-09 |
| First Defoliation | 11-10 | 11-15 | 11-10 | 10-12 |
| Last Defoliation | 11-25 | 11-28 | 11-25 | 11-17 |
Growth stages and crop coefficients of apple trees.
| Province | First Growth Period | Vigorous Growth Period | Post Growth Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Henan | First ten-day period of Mar.–Last ten-day period of Apr. | First ten days of May–Last ten days of Oct. | Second ten-day period of Oct–Last ten-day period of Nov. |
| Shanxi | Second ten-day of-Mar–Last ten-day of Apr | First ten -days of May–Last ten days of Oct. | Second ten-day period of Oct–Last ten-day period of Nov. |
| Shaanxi | Last ten-day period of Mar.–Last ten-day period of Apr. | First ten days of May–Last ten days of Oct. | Second ten-day period of Oct.–Last ten-day period of Nov. |
| Gansu | First ten-day period of Mar.–First ten-day period of Apr. | Second ten-day period of May–Second ten-day period of Oct. | Last ten-day period of Oct.–Second ten-day period of Nov. |
| Kc | 0.55 | 0.90 | 0.65 |
Summary of 21 general circulation models from coupled model inter-comparison project phase 5 (CMIP5).
| Model | Institution | Resolution | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| BCC-CSM1.1 | Beijing Climate Center, Meteorological Administration | 128 × 64 | Xin et al. (2013) [ |
| BNU-ESM | Beijing Normal University, China | 128 × 64 | Ji et al. (2014) [ |
| CanESM2 | Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Canada | 128 × 64 | Chylek et al. (2011) [ |
| CCSM4 | National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA | 288 × 192 | Subramanian et al. (2012) [ |
| CNRM-CM5 | Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques, Météo-France, France | 256 × 128 | Voldoire et al. (2013) [ |
| CSIRO-MK-3.6.0 | Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research | 192 × 96 | Rotstayn et al. (2013) [ |
| FGOALS-g2 | Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China | 128 × 60 | Zhou et al. (2013) [ |
| FIO-ESM | The First Institution of Oceanography, SOA, China | 128 × 64 | Qiao et al. (2013) [ |
| GFDL-CM3 | NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA | 144 × 90 | Donner et al. (2011) [ |
| GFDL-ESM2G | NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA | 144 × 90 | Dunne et al. (2012) [ |
| GFDL-ESM2M | NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA | 144 × 90 | Dunne et al. (2012) [ |
| GISS-E2-H | NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA | 144 × 90 | Shindell et al. (2013) [ |
| GISS-E2-R | NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA | 144 × 90 | Schmidt et al. (2010) [ |
| HadGEM2-AO | National Institute of Meteorological Research, Korea Meteorological Administration, Seoul, South Korea | 192 × 145 | Baek et al. (2013) [ |
| IPSL-CM5A-LR | Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, France | 96 × 96 | Dufresne et al. (2013) [ |
| MIROC5 | Tokyo, and National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan) | 256 × 128 | Watanabe et al. (2010) [ |
| MIROC-ESM | Tokyo, and National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan) | 128 × 65 | Watanabe et al. (2011) [ |
| MIROC-ESM-CHEM | Tokyo, and National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan) | 128 × 65 | Watanabe et al. (2011) [ |
| MPI-ESM-LR | Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany | 192 × 96 | Block and Mauritsen. (2013) [ |
| MRI-CGCM3 | Meteorological Research Institute, Japan | 320 × 160 | Yukimoto et al. (2012) [ |
| NorESM1-M | Norwegian Climate Centre, Norway | 144 × 96 | Bentsen et al. (2013) [ |
Figure 3Temporal evolution of water demand of apple trees in each province from 1990 to 2013.
Figure 4Spatial evolution of the water demand of apple trees in each province from 1990 to 2013.
Figure 5Temporal evolution of water suitability of apple trees from 1990 to 2013.
The statistics of water balance and water suitability (1990~2013).
| Sub-Region | Wmean | RMSEW | EPmean | RMSEEP | Umean | RMSEU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern | 680.36 mm | 70.10 mm | 374.00 mm | 71.11 mm | 0.55 | 0.13 |
| Western | 603.65 mm | 23.44 mm | 374.26 mm | 49.41 mm | 0.62 | 0.10 |
| Southern | 713.35 mm | 43.57 mm | 420.88 mm | 67.25 mm | 0.59 | 0.15 |
| Northern | 722.82 mm | 54.94 mm | 361.41 mm | 62.43 mm | 0.50 | 0.13 |
Note: Wmean is the multi-year average water demand of apple plantations in the period of 1990–2013; RMSEW is the root mean square error of the water demand series in the period of 1990–2013; EPmean is the multi-year average effective precipitation in the period of 1990–2013; RMSEEP is the root mean square error of the effective precipitation series in the period of 1990–2013; Umean is the multi-year average water suitability in the period of 1990–2013; RMSEU is the root mean square error of the water suitability series in the period of 1990–2013.
Figure 6Spatial evolution of the water suitability of apple trees in the study area from 1990 to 2013.
Figure 7Temporal evolution of water suitability of apple trees in each province from 1990 to 2013.
The statistics of water balance and water suitability (2019~2050).
| Sub-Region | Wmean | RMSEW | EPmean | RMSEEP | Umean | RMSEU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern | 708.49 mm | 20.78 mm | 432.18 mm | 36.70 mm | 0.61 | 0.06 |
| Western | 704.52 mm | 19.70 mm | 408.61 mm | 23.21 mm | 0.58 | 0.04 |
| Southern | 698.74 mm | 20.15 mm | 440.21 mm | 34.38 mm | 0.63 | 0.06 |
| Northern | 734.42 mm | 23.63 mm | 418.62 mm | 30.12 mm | 0.57 | 0.05 |
Note: Wmean is multi-year average water demand of apple plantations in the period of 2019–2050; RMSEW is the root mean square error of the water demand series in the period of 2019–2050; EPmean is the multi–year average effective precipitation in the period of 2019–2050; RMSEEP is the root mean square error of the effective precipitation series in the period of 2019–2050; Umean is the multi–year average water suitability in the period of 2019–2050; RMSEU is the root mean square error of the water suitability series in the period of 2019–2050.
Figure 8Spatial evolution of the water suitability of apple trees in each province from 2019 to 2050.
Figure 9The changing trend of the water demand of apple trees and the effective precipitation in Sanmenxia Region in the periods of 1990–2013 and 2019–2050.
Figure 10The changing trend of the water demand of apple trees and the effective precipitation in Yuncheng Region in the periods of 1990–2013 and 2019–2050.
Figure 11The changing trend of the water demand of apple trees and the effective precipitation in Shaanxi Province in the periods of 1990–2013 and 2019–2050.
Figure 12The changing trend of the water demand of apple trees and the effective precipitation in Gansu Province in the periods of 1990–2013 and 2019–2050.
Contribution rate and sensitivity coefficient of four meteorological factors to .
| U2 | Rn | Tmean | ea | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contribution rate | 18% | 36% | 38% | 8% |
| Sensitivity coefficient | 0.27 | 0.46 | 0.34 | −0.53 |