基于GAM模型的三种降雨因子对贵州地质灾害危险性预测的对比分析

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120072

中国农学通报 ›› 2015, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (6): 187-193.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120072

所属专题：农业气象

• 资源环境生态土壤气象 • 上一篇下一篇

基于GAM模型的三种降雨因子对贵州地质灾害危险性预测的对比分析

杜正静,夏晓玲,裴兴云,苏静文

贵州省气象服务中心,贵州省气象服务中心,贵州省气象服务中心,贵州省气象服务中心

收稿日期:2014-12-10 修回日期:2015-02-12 接受日期:2015-01-04 出版日期:2015-03-20 发布日期:2015-03-20
通讯作者: 杜正静
基金资助:
贵州省气象局重大专项《贵州“两高”沿线特色农业气候精细化区划与气象灾害防控》【2011】6003号，贵州省科学技术基金《诱发贵州山洪灾害的暴雨形成机理及预警服务体系建设的研究》[2012]2227号

Comparative Analysis of Three Kinds of Rainfall Factor for Geological Hazard Risk Prediction Based on GAM in Guizhou Province

Received:2014-12-10 Revised:2015-02-12 Accepted:2015-01-04 Online:2015-03-20 Published:2015-03-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 针对贵州省地质灾害的发生特征,选取连续降雨日数、连续无雨日数以及前期累计降雨量等进行主成分分析得到降雨主成分,与10d累计雨量、10d有效雨量两个单一的降雨因子在贵州省地形条件下分别采用广义加性模型(GAM)构建贵州省地质灾害危险性预测模型。通过检验对比分析,得出以下结论：(1)降雨主成分较客观地解释了降水对贵州省地质灾害危险性的影响,贵州省地质灾害主要发生在前期出现持续性降水或前期连续无雨时的突发性降水这两种情况。(2)在相同的地形地貌下垫面下,降雨主成分对地质灾害危险性的预测检验结果明显优于其余两种降雨因子,对地质灾害预测的精细化程度更接近实际发生情况。(3)不同降雨因子的选择对影响地质灾害的重要性有差异,选择降雨主成分时降水对地质灾害危险性的贡献更突出,其余影响地质灾害的地形地貌因子重要性依次为曲率、高程、坡向、坡度和剖面曲率。

关键词: 固体有机废弃物, 固体有机废弃物, 食用菌, 高效, 循环

Abstract: Aimed at the characteristics of the geological hazard in Guizhou province, the continuous rainy days, continuous non-rainy days and the early accumulative rainfall are chosen to calculate the rainfall principal component with the method of Principal component analysis. Then the risk prediction model of geological disaster is built by the generalized additive models(GAM) under the topography in Guizhou province respectively with the 10-day cumulative rainfall, the 10-day effective rainfall and the rainfall principal component. The results after being inspected show: (1) The rainfall principal component explains objectively the effect of the precipitation on the geological hazards risk. The geological hazards happened mostly in both cases of the early continuous precipitation and the sudden rain after the early continuous non-rain. (2)Under the same underlying surface, the method of the rainfall principal component is better than the other two about the forecast verification result, and the refinement of geologic hazard is more close to the actual situation. (3)The choice of different rainfall factors affects the importance of geological hazard differently. The precipitation makes the most prominent contribution to the risk of geological hazard with the method of rainfall principal component. and the rest factors to the geological hazard follow the order of curvature, altitude, aspect ,slope and profile curvature.

杜正静,夏晓玲,裴兴云,苏静文. 基于GAM模型的三种降雨因子对贵州地质灾害危险性预测的对比分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(6): 187-193.

参考文献

[1] 李德心,何思明,朱兴华,吴永,孙新坡. 前期有效降雨对滑坡启动影响分析[J].灾害学,2011,26(3)：41-45.LI Dexin,HE Siming,ZHU Xinghua, et al. Analysis on influences of antecedent effective rainfalls on landslide initiation. Journal of Catastrophology, 2011,26(3):41-45.(in Chinese)#$NL
[2] 刘艳辉,唐灿,吴剑波,连建发. 地质灾害与不同尺度降雨时空分布关系[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报. 2011,22(3): 74-83.LIU Yanhui,TANG Can, WU Jianbo, et al. Spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of geo-hazardsand rainfall in different scales.The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control. 2011,22(3): 74-83. (in Chinese)
[3] 倪化勇,王德伟. 基于雨量(强)条件的泥石流预测预报研究现状、问题与建议[J]. 灾害学, 2010, 25(1): 124-128.NI Huayong, WANG Dewei. Present status, problem and advice on the research of prediction and forecasting of debris flow based on rainfall condition. Journal of Catastrophology. 2010, 25(1): 124-128. (in Chinese)
[4] 李蕾,黄玫,刘正佳,徐庆勇,同晓娟,陆佩玲. 基于RS与GIS的毕节地区滑坡灾害危险性评价[J].自然灾害学报[J],2011,20(2):177-182LI Lei, HUANG Mei, LIU Zhengjia , et al. RS GIS-based evaluation of landslide hazard in Bijie Prefecture, Guizhou Province. Journal of Nature Disasters[J], 2011,20(2):177-182
[5] 谭万沛. 中国暴雨泥石流预报研究基本理论与现状[J] . 土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(1): 88- 95.TAN Wanpei. Basic theory and study situation of rainstorm debris fIow forecast in China. Journal of Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation. 1996,2(1): 88- 95. (in Chinese)
[6] J P Bruce, R H Clark. Introduction to Hydrometeorology[M].London: Pergamon Press, 1969: 252-270.
[7] 李铁锋, 丛威青. 基于Logistic 回归及前期有效雨量的降雨诱发型滑坡预测方法[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2006,17(1): 33-35.LI Tiefeng, CONG Weiqing. A method for rainfall-induced landslides prediction based on Logistic regression and effective antecedent rainfall. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control. 2006,17(1): 33-35. (in Chinese)
[8] 薛凯喜,胡艳香,杨泽平,胡明华,顾连胜. 诱发山地公路地质灾害的极端降雨事件辨识模型[J]. 东华理工大学学报(自然科学版),2012,35(3): 263-269.XUE Kaixi, HU Yanxiang, YANG Zeping, et al. Identification model of extreme rainfall events induced mountain road Geological disasters. Journal of East Hua Institute of Technology(Natural Science),2012,35(3): 263-269. (in Chinese)
[9] 陈洪凯,魏来,谭玲. 降雨型滑坡经验性降雨阈值研究综述[J]. 重庆交通大学学报(自然科学版),2012,31(5)：990-996.CHEN Hongkai, WEI Lai, TAN Ling. Review of research on empirical rainfall threshold of rainfall-induced landslide. Journal of ChongQing Jiaotong university(Natural Science) ,2012,31(5)：990-996. (in Chinese)
[10] 单九生,魏丽,刘修奋,朱星球,刘献耀. 江西崩滑流灾害的诱发条件与预测初探[J].自然灾害学报[J].2007,16(3):12-17SHAN Jiusheng , WEIli, LIU Xiufen, et al. Preliminary study on triggering conditions and Prediction of clllapse , landslide and debris-flow in Jiangxi Privince. Journal of Nature Disasters[J],2007,16(3): 12-18
[11] 刘剑平,朱坤平,陆元鸿. 应用数理统计[M]. 华东理工大学出版社,2012,5: 190-203.LIU Jianping, ZHU kunping, LU Yuanhong. Applied Mathematical Statistics[M]. East Hua Institute of Technology Press,2012,5: 190-203. (in Chinese)
[12] 麻土华,郑爱平,李长江. 降雨型滑坡的机理及其启示[J]. 科技通报,2014, 30(1): 39-43.MA Tuhua, ZHENG Aiping, LI Changjiang. Mechanism of rainfall-induced landslides and its implications to landslide prediction[J]. Bulletin of Sciense and Technology ,2014, 30(1): 39-43. (in Chinese)
[13] 司康平,田原,汪大明,邬伦,朱亚林. 滑坡灾害危险性评价的3种统计方法比较——以深圳市为例[J]. 北京大学学报(自然科学版)网络版(预印本)[J],2009,45(4): 19-26.SI Kangping, TIAN Yuan, WANG Daming, et al. The comparison of three statistical methods on landslide susceptibility analysis: A case study of Shenzhen city. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis (Online First), 2008(4): 19-26. (in Chinese)
[14] Han J W, Kamber M. Data Mining Concepts and Techniques, Second Edition. Singapore: Elsevier, 2007
[15] 龙万学,谭勇鸿,林剑。基于GIS的贵州省地质灾害危险性评价[J].地理空间信息,2009,7(6):24-27LONG Wanxue, TAN Yonghong, LIN Jian. Geological Hazard Risk Assessment Based on GIS in Guizhou[J]. Geospatial Information,2009,7(6):24-27

基于GAM模型的三种降雨因子对贵州地质灾害危险性预测的对比分析

Comparative Analysis of Three Kinds of Rainfall Factor for Geological Hazard Risk Prediction Based on GAM in Guizhou Province

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	李晓宇. 苇基杏鲍菇栽培及产品分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(1): 51-55.
[2]	郑玲玲, 纪瑞锋, 韩红亮, 罗旖璐, 罗嘉仪, 管悦琴, 姚其盛, 郑卫兵, 陈美兰, 周修腾. 百蕊草药材中5种黄酮类化学成分的含量测定[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(5): 30-36.
[3]	张晶, 刘立娜, 杨宝明, 王永芬, 何平, 徐胜涛, 尹可锁, 李舒, 白亭亭, 李永平, 李迅东, 郑泗军. 基于UPLC-MS/MS分析不同生态型香蕉品种青果皮的主要酚酸成分[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(28): 129-135.
[4]	郑盛华, 陈尚洪, 陈红琳, 杨泽鹏, 敖玉琴, 刘定辉. 川西北高原农业面源污染分析与防控技术对策——以阿坝藏族羌族自治州为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(27): 60-65.
[5]	董世良, 詹斯文, 何结望, 邱彤, 张雪琼, 刘峰峰. 基于HPLC指纹图谱技术的烤烟质量分类研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25): 151-157.
[6]	王潇楠, 常虹, 王思威, 顾燕萍, 孙海滨, 刘艳萍. HPLC-MS/MS法测定枇杷中乙螨唑残留量及安全评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(22): 121-125.
[7]	王玮. 海南自贸港热带特色高效农业发展路径探索[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(21): 158-164.
[8]	肖阳, 沈维治, 杨琼, 李庆荣, 邢东旭, 邹宇晓. 肉桂木栽培的食用菌多糖抗氧化与降血糖作用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(20): 132-137.
[9]	郑盛华, 陈尚洪, 陈红琳, 万柯均, 敖玉琴, 刘定辉. 川东丘陵区生态循环农业发展路径研究——以四川省蓬溪县种养废弃物资源化利用模式为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(18): 95-99.
[10]	周志明, 吕彪, 闫芳, 张春云, 王海平, 王勤礼, 王建东, 徐涛, 张春梅, 陈叶. 不同年限唐古特瑞香不同药用部位活性物质初探[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(14): 53-59.
[11]	杨文静, 王占军, 甘晓燕, 何建龙, 张丽. 欧李高效再生体系的建立[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(13): 60-65.
[12]	宋芸, 樊平, 王敏, 王强, 薛鹏飞. 几种废弃物基质有氧堆肥腐解因素比较分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(11): 53-57.
[13]	白一苇, 张世壮, 王雁楠, 高晓茹, 牛金彪, 何绍贞. 植物组织培养中抗污染培养基新配方的探索[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(6): 89-96.
[14]	张寒舒, 李文凤, 单红丽, 王晓燕, 张荣跃, 房超, 段婷颖, 李泽娟, 黄丕忠, 黄应昆. 复合高效配方药剂对甘蔗褐锈病防控效果评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(6): 147-152.
[15]	彭绿春, 廖多思, 解玮佳, 宋杰, 蔡艳飞, 张露, 李世峰. 高山杜鹃离体叶片高效再生及其再生途径研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(34): 77-83.