【正文】 19631964196519661967196819751976附表8 坡度的為5176。、10176。、15176。時(shí)取最優(yōu)CN值的效率系數(shù)Table8 when slope of 5 176。, 10 176。, 15 176。 taking the best CN value the coefficient of performance年 份降雨P(guān)（mm）徑流深R（mm）預(yù)測(cè)徑流深R′(mm)(RR′)2（RR平均）21954195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819751976求和附表9 坡度的為20176。、25176。、30176。、35176。時(shí)取最優(yōu)CN值的效率系數(shù)Table 9 when slope of 20 176。, 25 176。,30 176。, 35 176。 taking the best CN value the coefficient of performance年 份降雨P(guān)（mm）徑流深R（mm）預(yù)測(cè)徑流深R′(mm)(RR′)2（RR平均）21954195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819751976求和致 謝時(shí)光飛逝，轉(zhuǎn)瞬間，豐富多彩的大學(xué)生活已經(jīng)接近尾聲。回眸過去初來西農(nóng)的我，略帶稚氣，充滿彷徨，面對(duì)漂亮的校園也只能感覺到強(qiáng)烈的壓迫感。但是，與老師和同學(xué)相處不久后，自己便很快融入到快樂的生活和學(xué)習(xí)中，在此對(duì)他們表示衷心的感謝。首先，感謝導(dǎo)師吳磊老師，他為人和善，治學(xué)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)。課上課下，總能耐心的解答我們所遇到的問題，如同朋友。論文期間，老師細(xì)心為我們六人小組分配研究題目，以個(gè)人的興趣為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，直到最后反復(fù)修改和完善每篇論文的不足，處處都浸透著老師的心血和汗水。若論文中出現(xiàn)自己無法解決的問題，老師會(huì)主動(dòng)騎車到南校悉心指導(dǎo)我們。老師嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)闹螌W(xué)精神和一絲不茍的工作作風(fēng)使我終生受益。也正是老師的無私幫助和熱枕鼓勵(lì)，我們才能順利完成畢業(yè)論文。感謝所有的授課老師，你們辛苦了！其次，感謝舍友們?cè)谡撐呐虐嫔辖o予的幫助。最后，真誠的感謝答辯老師們能夠抽出時(shí)間來評(píng)議和指導(dǎo)我的論文。 代騰飛2014年6月6日于楊凌中英文翻譯A review of the USDA SCS curve number methodAbstract：The origin and evolution of the USDA SCS curve number method for estimating runoff from small ungauged rural catchments is traced, and the characteristics of the method are examined. When the method is expressed as an infiltration equation, the infiltration rate bees dependent on both total storm rainfall and rainfall intensity. When expressed as a spatially varied saturation overland flow model, the method implies that some part of any catchment has infinite surface storage capacity. The lack of physical reality in the formulation of the method is an inherent limitation to any further development. A major weakness is the sensitivity of estimated runoff to errors in the selection of the curve number. Changes of about 1520% in the curve number doubles or halves the total estimated runoff. The results of some Australian studies where curve numbers have been calibrated against actual runoff data are collated.Applicability of SCS curve number method for a California Oak woodlands watershedAbstract： The curve number (CN) method developed by the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) for predicting peak runoff from watersheds has not been extensively tested in western regions of the United States. We used a 17 year rainfall and runoff record from a California Oak woodland watershed to pare the accuracy of CN as prescribed in the SCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH4) with two alternative methods. Each method predicted mean annual peak runoff that was not significantly different from observed runoff, and correlation between estimated and observed runoff from each of the three methods was statistically significant. However, the highest correlation coefficient showed that only 50% of the variability in the data were accounted for by any of the methods. The NEH4 method underpredicted maximum flows for the highest flaw years. The more conservative Hjelmfelt method more frequently overpredicted peak flow. Overprediction provides a measure of safety when using the CN technique.Keywords: Forest hydrology, oak woodlands, watershed management, wildland hydrology Conclusion： Estimated mean annual peak runoff was not significantly different from observed runoff regardless of the method used for determining CN, confirming the ability of the curve number technique to relate rainfall to runoff for peak events. The S probability method (Hjelmfelt 1991) most frequently overestimated runoff and is, therefore, a more conservative predictor than the NEH4 method. The best method for CN calculation explained only 51% of the variability in peak annual runoff with a regression slope of . In this Oak and grassland watershed, it is likely that macro pore and lateral flows contributed to runoff and were not accounted for with any of the CN techniques. This should serve as caution to researchers and resource managers utilizing CN for hydrologic modeling and flood management in California39。s Oak Woodlands and other watersheds in which macropore flow is prevalent.美國農(nóng)業(yè)部SCS曲線數(shù)方法綜述摘 要 ：徑流曲線數(shù)法的起源于美國農(nóng)業(yè)部土壤保持局，對(duì)小型無資料地區(qū)估算徑流，在農(nóng)耕地被檢查修正。當(dāng)該方法被表示為一種滲透方程，滲透速率取決于降雨量和降雨強(qiáng)度；當(dāng)被表示為在空間上變化的飽和坡面徑流模型，該方法意味著集水區(qū)的任何部分具有無限的存儲(chǔ)容量。該方法估計(jì)徑流缺乏物理的真實(shí)性，曲線數(shù)敏感性的選擇的錯(cuò)誤會(huì)限制進(jìn)一步的發(fā)展 。澳大利亞的一些研究，校準(zhǔn)后的曲線數(shù)所得的預(yù)測(cè)徑流值與實(shí)際徑流數(shù)據(jù)比較，曲線數(shù)變化約1520％會(huì)導(dǎo)致估計(jì)總徑流量加倍或減半。SCS曲線數(shù)法對(duì)加利福尼亞橡樹林地流域的適用性摘 要: 曲線數(shù) (CN) 被預(yù)測(cè)來自分水嶺的山頂表面流水沒有廣泛地在美國的區(qū)域西部被測(cè)試的土壤保護(hù)服務(wù) (現(xiàn)在 NRCS) 發(fā)展的方法。 我們用了來自一個(gè)加州橡樹森林地分水嶺的一筆 17 年降雨和表面流水記錄比較如 SCS 所規(guī)定的 CN 的準(zhǔn)確性國立工程手冊(cè) (NEH4) 由于二個(gè)其它可能的方法。 每個(gè)方法預(yù)測(cè)了沒有重要地不同于觀察表面流水的低劣的年刊山頂表面流水, 和相互關(guān)系在估計(jì)之間而且觀察來自每一個(gè)三個(gè)方法都的表面流水以統(tǒng)計(jì)上來看重要的。 然而，最高的相互關(guān)系系數(shù)表示了只有 50% 的易變?cè)跀?shù)據(jù)中被任何一個(gè)方法解釋了。 最高的缺點(diǎn)數(shù)年的 NEH4 方法估低最大的流程。 更保守的方法更時(shí)常估高山頂流動(dòng)。 當(dāng)使用 CN 技術(shù)的時(shí)候，提供對(duì)安全的衡量。 關(guān)鍵字: 植樹水聞學(xué)，橡樹森林地，分水嶺管理，荒地水聞學(xué) 結(jié)論 ：估計(jì)表面流水沒有重要地不同于觀察不管作為決定 CN 的方法的表面流水的低劣的年度山頂,確定曲線的能力數(shù)技術(shù)為山頂事件使降雨和表面流水產(chǎn)生關(guān)聯(lián)。 S 可能性方法最時(shí)常對(duì)表面流水作過高的評(píng)價(jià)因此, 是超過 NEH4 方法一個(gè)比較保守的預(yù)言者。 給 CN 計(jì)算的最好方法在和一座復(fù)原傾斜的山頂年刊表面流水中解釋只有 51% . 在這一棵橡樹和牧草地分水嶺中，它是成為表面流水的因素并且不與任何 CN 技術(shù)一起解釋的有可能的那一個(gè)句集毛孔和側(cè)部流程。 這應(yīng)該視為在大孔隙流程是普遍的加州橡木制的森林地和其他的分水嶺中為 hydrologic 模型和洪水管理利用 CN 的對(duì)研究員和資源經(jīng)理的小心。