• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Spatial and Temporal Validation of In-Situ and Satellite Weather Data for the South West Agricultural Region of Australia

    2022-03-12 07:52:18TristanCAMPBELLandPeterFEARNS
    Journal of Meteorological Research 2022年1期
    關(guān)鍵詞:品種鑒定秈型雜交種

    Tristan CAMPBELL and Peter FEARNS

    1 Centre for Mine Site Restoration, Curtin University of Technology, WA 6102, Australia

    2 Remote Sensing and Satellite Research Group, Curtin University of Technology, WA 6102, Australia

    ABSTRACT

    Key words: Australian Water Availability Project, land surface temperature, satellite precipitation, validation

    1. Introduction

    Variations in weather conditions have a significant effect on crop yields, with simplistic crop yield models based on minimum and maximum temperature and precipitation data that are able to describe significant proportions of variances in crop yield (Lobell et al., 2007;Chen et al., 2014; Kheiri et al., 2017). Effects of weather on crop yields can be nonlinear and asymmetric, with differences in maximum temperature of as little as 2°C having a large impact on yields (Schlenker and Roberts,2009). This nonlinear and asymmetric relationship has also been demonstrated for non-cereal agricultural production, such as modeling the production of honey from mature native forests, with floral bud initiation having precise temperature thresholds and precipitation during flowering having a step-wise impact on honey harvest weight (Campbell et al., 2020).

    Due to these sensitivities, the accuracy of weather data is an important consideration in data selection for input into both qualitative and quantitative crop yield models.There are a variety of weather datasets commonly available, ranging from in-situ weather stations to satellitebased remote sensing products.

    In-situ weather stations are commonly regarded as a source of accurate data for their spatial location, but even scientific-grade weather station temperature gauges such as those used for national scale climate monitoring networks in the United States of America can have inherent instrument errors of ±0.2°C (Lin and Hubbard, 2004).Likewise, precipitation gauges have inherent limitations with, for example, wind having potentially significant effects on the volume of precipitation entering the gauge(F?rland et al., 1996). To minimize the effects of location and installation characteristics, it is important for weather station networks to have individual stations installed according to common standards, such as those defined by Canterford (1997).

    Efforts have been made to improve the ability of weather station networks to capture spatial variability. In Australia, for example, the Australian Water Availability Project (AWAP) developed national gridded datasets for rainfall, temperature, and vapour pressure that integrate topographic effects between weather stations to the interpolation process (Jones et al., 2009).

    Satellite-derived measurements of weather offer the advantage of spatially continuous datasets, which is particularly important when in-situ weather stations are sparse; however the performance can vary widely depending on the weather conditions, landform, and land use types (Mendelsohn et al., 2007).

    Retrieval of land surface temperature (LST) parameters from satellite remote sensing data primarily utilizes the thermal infrared (TIR) bands and correcting the data for atmospheric, angular, and emissivity effects (Dash et al., 2004). Validation of the Copernicus LST data, created and distributed by the European Space Agency(Martins et al., 2020) from theHimawari-8satellite operated by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency(JAXA), established a root-mean-square error (RMSE)for the LST product of 2.37°C over Japan, with a bias of?0.55°C over a temperature range from ?5 to 33°C(Freitas et al., 2017). Validation studies of this product over a wider geographic region (from Japan to Australia)found similar accuracies, with an RMSE of 2.29°C and bias of ?0.70°C from Li et al. (2020) and an RMSE of 3.6°C and bias of ?0.1°C by Martins et al. (2018). This last study noted that there was an increasing positive bias for temperatures above 35°C (the temperature range in the study was from ?10 to 40°C). It is important to note that these studies relied primarily on validation against other satellite-derived LST products, with limited in-situ weather station validation.

    Satellite measurement of precipitation typically uses a combination of passive microwave (PMW) and infrared(IR) data. The Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation(GSMaP) product produced by JAXA (Kubota et al.,2007) has used data from theHimawari-8satellite since 2015 and includes a suite of products, from near realtime (GSMaP-N), vector filtered data (GSMaP-M), and rain-gauge calibrated products (GSMaP-G). Generally,satellite precipitation products will overestimate precipitation at low rainfall rates and underestimate high rainfall rates (Habib et al., 2012; Ning et al., 2017). Rainfall type can also affect satellite precipitation accuracy, for example cold frontal rainfall events were measured less accurately in Australia than other rainfall types, which indicate a potential seasonal variance in accuracies (Chua et al., 2020).

    This study provides a detailed validation of the spatial and seasonal variations in accuracy of temperature and precipitation data from ground-based in-situ and gridded products and satellite products for the South West Agricultural Region of Australia (SWAR; Data WA, 2018).The region contains a weather station network operated by the national Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), which is used to create interpolated gridded products and to calibrate satellite products, as well as an independent weather station network operated by the state’s Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD,2018) to provide improved spatial coverage of weather stations for agricultural producers. While this region has been included in national-scale assessments of weather products (Chua et al., 2020), there has been limited assessment of the accuracy variability across this 350,000-km2area, which accounts for 95% of Western Australia’s$10 billion AUD in agricultural production (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020), despite covering less than 12% of the state’s land area.

    2. Materials and methods

    2.1 Study area

    The SWAR is the main agricultural region of Western Australia and extends almost 1000 km to the north from the south coast of the continent, and almost 1000 km to the east from the west coast (Fig. 1).

    The region covers five classifications of the K?ppen–Geiger climate classification system (Peel et al.,2007), from the hot, arid steppe environment (BSh) in the north to the warm temperate, fully humid, warm summer(Cfb) along the south coast to the cold, to the arid steppe environment (BSk) to the east. The regions are clarified by DPIRD into crop variety testing zones (CVTs) based on temperature and rainfall contours. In Fig. 1, the rainfall regions range from low in the inland areas (< 325-mm average annual rainfall, designated as “L” in Fig. 1)to very high near the coast in the southwestern quadrant of the region (> 750-mm average annual rainfall, designated as “VH” in Fig. 1). Temperature zones range from average annual temperature of greater than 28°C in the north (Zone 1) to less than 24°C in the south (Zone 5).

    While the general weather patterns for the region are warmer, drier summers and cooler, wetter winters, rainfall patterns since 1997 have seen a marked decrease in autumn, winter, and spring rainfall (Charles et al., 2010).Regional climate projections for the next few decades indicate a continued drying trend during these seasons,with increased localized summer rainfall events and overall increasing temperatures and increased likelihood of extreme temperature events (Andrys et al., 2017).

    2.2 Datasets

    The temperature and precipitation datasets for the data validation are selected based on the following characteristics:

    1) Data availability, such that users can freely access both current and historical data;2) Dataset longevity:

    ? Historic data available over a sufficient period to assess the accuracy (the period 2015–2019 for this study);

    ? Data provided by government entities with historic,current, and future data anticipated to be freely available for future users;

    3) Spatial resolution of maximum 10-km cell size for detailed analysis for individual farm use for medium to large landholders (rather than broader regional use).

    2.2.1Ground-based measurements

    Both BOM and DPIRD have weather station networks in the region with online portals for searching and retrieval of data (Bureau of Meteorology, 2021a; Campbell, 2021), thus meeting the three criteria above. With the BOM weather stations being used for the calibration of several satellite datasets, as well as the generation of inter-station gridded products, the DPIRD weather station network is selected as the baseline for the validation process for this study as the BOM weather station network is utilized in calibration of almost all the other datasets.

    2.2.2Ground-based interpolation dataset

    As mentioned in the Introduction, BOM has developed an approach for interpolation of in-situ temperature and precipitation data across Australia that incorporates some of the factors that affect these measurements between stations, such as topography (Jones et al., 2009).Grids of interpolated weather data are available for download from Bureau of Meteorology (2021b).

    Cross-validation of these datasets across Australia by Jones et al. (2009) calculated RMSEs of monthly maximum and minimum temperature between 0.5 and 1.0°C for the SWAR (national average RMSE 1.6 and 1.5°C, respectively). Cross-validation of the monthly rainfall data across the SWAR gave an RMSE between 10 and 25 mm, against a national average RMSE of 24.7 mm.

    2.2.3Satellite-derived LST

    While daily maximum and minimum LST data are available globally on scales of 1 km or less from platforms such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS; Zhu et al., 2017), these measurements are only recorded a few times per day. As a result,they are not reliable measures of the actual daily maximum or minimum as the time of these maxima and minima do not coincide with the time of satellite overpass. Therefore, the hourly Copernicus LST dataset was used for LST (Martins et al., 2020), with the daily maxima and minima extracted and used to calculate the monthly average maximum and minimum temperature. While the spatial resolution of this dataset is coarser than products such as MODIS MOD11 LST product (5 km compared to 1 km, respectively), the significantly higher temporal resolution of the hourly Copernicus LST more reliably captures the maximum and minimum temperature. The Copernicus hourly LST data are available from European Commission Joint Research (2021).

    While validation of the Copernicus LST product for the coverage of theHimawari-8satellite gives an RMSE of less than 3°C, it has been noted by Martins et al.(2018) that there is an increasing positive bias above 35°C but this is not quantified. It is therefore expected that for this work a bias-correction would need to be applied to the LST maximum temperature data, particularly in the summer months.

    2.2.4Satellite-derived precipitation

    While there are a number of global precipitation products derived from satellite data, such as the Climate Prediction Center morphing method (CMORPH; Joyce et al., 2004) and Indian National Satellite (INSAT) Multispectral Rainfall Algorithm (IMSRA), these have resolutions of 0.25°, which are quite coarse when considering local variations in rainfall. Accordingly, the GSMaP products from the JAXA were selected for this study(Kubota et al., 2007). The GSMaP data are available from JAXA (2021). Hereafter, the near real-time GSMaP product is referred to as “GSMaP-N” and the rain gaugecorrected product as “GSMaP-G” if not qualified as the gauge—corrected product.

    2.3 Methods

    For validation of the products, the statistical methods described in Table 1 were used to compare each of the weather datasets against the DPIRD weather station data as the verification dataset, with all datasets aggregated to monthly values over the period January 2015–December 2019 inclusive. Based on the proximity principle, where a single gauge station can reflect the same rainfall pattern in the surrounding area (Wang et al., 2021), and the relatively high spatial resolution of the gridded and satellite temperature products (5-km grid/pixel size), nearest neighbor analysis was used to compare the weather datasets with the relevant DPIRD weather station data. As the objective of assessing both the BOM weather station data and the BOM gridded weather products was to determine the effectiveness of the gridding process, nearest neighbor analysis was also used for comparing the DPIRD and BOM weather stations.

    The validation was performed initially on the aggregate of all monthly data over the 2015–2019 period. The same validation statistics were generated from all monthly data over the period for each DPIRD station to assess spatial variability of accuracy for each weather dataset. The same analysis (aggregate and spatial) was also performed for each month of the year for each DPIRD station to assess seasonal variations in accuracy.

    Due to the expected mean bias (MB) of the Copernicus LST product for temperatures greater than 35°C(Martins et al., 2018), a bias-corrected Copernicus LST dataset was calculated by applying a linear bias correction. The bias correction was derived from linear regression model between the daily error of the Copernicus maximum temperature and nearest DPIRD station, and the daily maximum Copernicus temperature (see Fig. 2).An assessment of the bias for the daily minimum temperature was also performed. This assessment gave a significantly lower correlation coefficient compared to the daily maximum temperature but overall showing a strong negative bias. Accordingly, a linear bias-corrected dataset was also calculated for the Copernicus LST daily minimum temperature data. Hereafter, the bias-corrected Copernicus LST data are referred to as “Copernicus_LST_BC,” if not explicitly described as such.

    3. Results

    3.1 Statistical comparisons of accuracy

    The comparisons of statistical analysis of the temperature and precipitation products are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. These summaries show that the BOM gridded products generally had the lowest errors for the three weather parameters assessed (monthly average minimum and maximum temperature, and monthly precipitation). The BOM weather stations generally performed second best out of the four data sources for each weather property, with the gridding process used byBOM reducing the MAE, RMSE, and median error in all datasets.

    Table 1. Definition of statistical methods used for validation. Note that Ei represents the estimated value at a point i, Oi is the observed value at the nearest DPIRD weather station, and N is the number of samples

    Fig. 2. Error between daily (a) maximum and (b) minimum Copernicus LST compared to DPIRD weather stations. Data are colored in a “heatmap” fashion by the concentration of datapoints.

    The uncorrected satellite derived temperature and precipitation products resulted in the highest errors for both temperature and precipitation. However, the bias correction for the Copernicus LST data applied in this study and the precipitation gauge calibration for the GSMaP data provided by JAXA reduced the errors considerably(RMSE improvements of 82% for monthly average maximum temperature, 58% for minimum temperature, and 38% for monthly precipitation). This result highlights the limitation of weather data derived purely from remote sensing data and the need for corrections using groundbased data sources.

    Table 2. Comparison of BOM and Copernicus LST monthly maximum and minimum temperature product accuracies (relative to DPIRD in-situ data). Monthly statistics from January 2015 to December 2019 inclusive. The equivalent statistics from the Australian analysis of the BOM products by Jones et al. (2009) and the hemispheric analysis of Copernicus LST by Martins et al. (2018) are provided in brackets where applicable

    Table 3. Comparison of BOM and JAXA monthly rainfall product accuracies. Monthly statistics from January 2015 to December 2019 inclusive. The equivalent statistics from the Australian analysis of the BOM products by Jones et al. (2009) and GSMaP-G by Chua et al. (2020) are provided in brackets where applicable. Note that for Chua et al. (2020), as the analysis was performed on daily precipitation, the statistics have been scaled to monthly numbers as appropriate

    The relative accuracies of the BOM and satellite products are also apparent in cross plots of these datasets against the nearest DPIRD stations, shown in Fig. 3. In all cases, the BOM gridded products have the highest proportion of datapoints on a 1 : 1 trendline compared to DPIRD data, with the BOM weather station data having the next highest proportion on this trendline. The relative performance of the satellite products is less clear in terms of the density of datapoints. The improvements of the Copernicus LST once the linear bias corrections are applied are apparent but the improvements to the GSMaP product once gauge calibrations are applied are only apparent in the summary statistics in Table 3.

    3.2 Spatial patterns of accuracy

    The average weather conditions over the 5-yr period 2015–2019 for each dataset presented in Fig. 4 show that every dataset captures the broad climatic trends across the study area as described by the K?ppen–Geiger climate zones and DPIRD CVTs. Even at this broad scale,the bias of the uncorrected Copernicus LST data is obvious, with the monthly maximum temperature overestimated and monthly minimum temperature underestimated.The lower accuracy of the non-gauge corrected GSMaP product is evident but not as apparent as the Copernicus LST temperature bias.

    The BOM gridded temperature and precipitation products and the GSMaP-G product are designed to reduce errors in weather data interpolated between weather stations. Figure 5 shows the annual RMSE for each DPIRD validation point plotted against the distance between the BOM weather station and the DPIRD validation point. There is a clear improvement in the average RMSE between the BOM weather station and BOM gridded products evidenced by the lower spread in data points and lower overall RMSE, as well as from the uncorrected to corrected Copernicus LST and GSMaP satellite products. While there is a general increase in RMSE of the BOM weather station temperature data with increasing distance from the nearest DPIRD weather station, there is not a strong correlation (Rvalues between 0.28 and 0.46). This is only a strong relationship at distances greater than 50 km. Over this distance, it is not reasonable to expect a weather station to be a reasonable measure of weather conditions without some form of interpolation.

    Fig. 3. Crossplots of BOM and satellite weather data against DPIRD station data. Monthly statistics from January 2015 to December 2019 inclusive. Data are coloured by concentration of data points. A 1 : 1 ratio line is presented on each subplot for reference.

    The gridding algorithm BOM using does lessen the errors and reduce the correlation between RMSE and distance, reducing theRvalues between 0.17 and 0.28 compared to the weather station data. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the interpolation process is reducing errors resulting from localized weather variations between weather stations.

    An assessment of the spatial variability of RMSE and bias of the weather products against the DPIRD validation weather stations shows strong spatial patterns of weather data accuracy (see Figs. 6 and 7 for these data).As expected, all BOM station metrics are improved when the data are gridded and all satellite data metrics are improved when bias correction or precipitation gauge calibration is used (for the Copernicus LST and GSMaP products, respectively).

    Fig. 4. Annual average weather data for the validation dataset (DPIRD) and the selected weather datasets. Monthly statistics from January 2015 to December 2019 inclusive.

    The spatial patterns of RMSE for the BOM weather stations and gridded products are similar, with temperature RMSE’s highest in the northern and eastern edges of the study area (where Fig. 1 shows a lower density of BOM temperature weather stations) and the precipitation less accurate in the south–west quadrant. The bias-corrected LST data show the greatest errors over and around the capital city of Perth, on the west coast of the study area (32.0°S, 115.8°E), which may indicate issues with the ability of the original LST data to adequately account for the urban heat island effect (Price, 1979). The gauge-calibrated GSMaP product has markedly higher RMSE in the south–west corner of the study area,roughly correlating with the “Very High (VH)” rainfall region as classified by DPIRD CVT zones.

    The bias patterns for the BOM products are less spatially coherent than the RMSE results. The BOM maximum temperature bias displays no coherent pattern with regards to climatic zones or land use types, although the minimum temperature bias is generally higher in areas of lower spatial density of BOM temperature weather stations. The BOM rainfall products have several “bullseye”features in the south–west quadrant, and higher bias in the eastern extent of the study area, but again no clear relationship to climatic zones.

    The spatial patterns of bias are clearer for the satellite products, with the maximum temperature generally underestimated along the Darling Range [a significant geological and topographical feature running from north of Perth to the south coast (Nemchin and Pidgeon, 1997)]and overestimated east of this. The minimum temperature is overestimated near Perth, and the gauge-corrected precipitation is generally underestimated along the western coastal area.

    3.3 Seasonal patterns of accuracy

    Fig. 5. Weather data RMSE against distance from the nearest BOM weather station. Note the different scales across different plots. Each data point represents a DPIRD station.

    The accuracy of spatial temperature products is often dependent on temperature gradients (Jones et al., 2009)and the accuracy of spatial precipitation products is often dependent on precipitation event type (Chua et al.,2020). To assess how summer versus winter weather conditions affect the spatial variability of the RMSE for each product, the RMSE was generated on a monthly basis for the study area and study period. The results for January and July are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 respectively to assess the effects during the warmest-driest–coolestwettest months of the study area. A full set of all months is presented in the supplementary data (Campbell, 2021).

    For the month of January, the BOM temperature products showed similar spatial RMSE patterns to the annual RMSE data; RMSE values generally higher in the northern and eastern extents and the gridded product having a lower RMSE than the weather station data. With the annual and January RMSE maps plotted on the same color scale, it is apparent that the maximum temperatures in January have higher RMSE in the northern and eastern zones of the study area than the annual RMSE.Areas of higher RMSE for BOM precipitation products for January are generally bullseye features. This indicates that the weather station network is unable to adequately capture localized, high intensity rainfall events,which are the primary cause of higher rainfall totals for the month of January (Sudmeyer et al., 2016).

    The bias-corrected Copernicus LST maximum January temperature product performed similarly to the annual RMSE for the northern, inland, and eastern regions of the study area, but exhibited high errors along the Darling Scarp (identified as an area of higher bias for this product in the annual data). The Copernicus LST minimum temperature product has a lower RMSE on average for January compared with annual data.

    鑫兩優(yōu)212是合肥市蜀香種子有限公司利用抗旱性較強(qiáng)的兩系不育系蜀鑫1S與抗高溫恢復(fù)系鑫恢212 2009年配組,2014年通過安徽省審定的雜交水稻新品種(審定編號(hào):皖稻2014022),經(jīng)上海市農(nóng)業(yè)生物基因中心2012年抗旱性鑒定,抗旱性達(dá)1級(jí),是國(guó)內(nèi)選育的首個(gè)雜交秈型旱稻品種[13]。筆者擬利用農(nóng)業(yè)部頒布的行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)《水稻品種鑒定技術(shù)規(guī)程SSR標(biāo)記法》(NY/T 1433—2014)中推薦的48個(gè)SSR標(biāo)記,篩選適合的特異引物用于該雜交種純度的快速鑒定。

    The GSMaP-G product performed better in the VH rainfall region in the south–west corner but exhibited bullseye patterns of higher errors elsewhere (similar to the BOM products). Interestingly, there are some areas where the GSMaP-N product performed better than the gauge-calibrated product (along 30°S for example). This may be due to the GSMaP-G product being calibrated to weather stations that are not capturing localized precipitation events that the product is measuring, or extending localized precipitation events at weather stations.

    Fig. 6. Comparison of BOM and satellite weather data RMSE against DPIRD stations. Monthly statistics from January 2015 to December 2019 inclusive.

    The spatial pattern of errors was noticeably different in July compared to January for all weather products.BOM weather station and gridded temperature products had lower RMSE for both minimum and maximum temperature than the annual RMSE across almost the whole study area. The only exceptions to this are a few areas in the eastern region where the minimum temperature RMSE is slightly higher for July than the annual RMSE.BOM precipitation RMSE for July was higher than the annual RMSE for the very high rainfall area, and some of the high rainfall areas. There is less evidence of bullseye errors from localized events than were prevalent in the January RMSE.

    The Copernicus LST maximum temperature RMSE in July was similar to the annual RMSE for the southern region. July RMSE was lower for Perth and higher for the northern region compared with the annual RMSE. There is significantly reduced influence of the Darling Range on the RMSEs for July compared with January. Copernicus LST minimum temperature for July showed similar RMSE compared to the annual and July data.

    Fig. 7. Comparison of BOM and satellite weather data bias against DPIRD stations. Monthly statistics from January 2015 to December 2019 inclusive.

    The GSMaP-G product showed significantly higher errors in the high and very high rainfall regions of the south–west and south–east coastal regions. This is not unexpected with satellite precipitation generally underestimating higher rainfall events and less accurate for coldfrontal based precipitation (Chua et al., 2020).

    3.4 Comparative spatial and seasonal accuracy

    To directly compare the accuracy of the BOM gridded products and the calibrated/corrected satellite products (the best performing datasets from ground and satellite-derived data respectively), the relative RMSE maps in Fig. 10 were generated. These maps show the relative accuracy of the BOM grids compared to the calibrated satellite data with the DPIRD weather station network as a baseline in both cases.

    The RMSE maps are colored such that green areas show where the BOM grids have a better RMSE than the satellite data, yellow areas here where both datasets have similar RMSE and red where the satellite data have better RMSE. Temperature data were considered better where the RMSE was less than 0.25°C. Rainfall data were considered better where the RMSE was less than 5 mm. This analysis was done on an annual basis and for each month in the year. The annual, January, and July data are shown in Fig. 10 and the full set of figures is provided in the supplementary data (Campbell, 2021).

    Overall, the BOM gridded products perform better but there are some exceptions where the satellite data are more accurate, primarily for minimum and maximum temperature in the northern and eastern edges of the study area, and minimum temperature in the south–west corner and isolated areas along the south coast of the study area. These areas are all locations with relatively sparse BOM temperature weather stations (Fig. 1).

    Fig. 8. Comparison of BOM and satellite weather data RMSE against DPIRD stations for January (austral summer). January statistics from January 2015 to January 2019 inclusive.

    Apart from some very localized points, the BOM gridded rainfall product performs similarly to better than the GSMaP-G product across the study area.

    4. Discussion

    4.1 Copernicus LST bias correction

    With several validation studies completed for the Copernicus LST product in-situ weather station data, mostly showing a consistent RMSE of 2–3°C (Freitas et al.,2017; Martins et al., 2018, 2020), the size of the positive bias of this dataset at higher temperature was an unexpected result (bias corrections in the order of 20°C for weather station temperature in the order of 40°C). The effectiveness of the linear bias correction for higher temperature (82% improvement in RMSE for average monthly maximum temperature) was likewise unexpected.

    Fig. 9. Comparison of BOM and satellite weather data RMSE against DPIRD stations for July (austral winter). July statistics from July 2015 to July 2019 inclusive.

    The Copernicus LST product is validated against both in-situ weather stations (Martins et al., 2018), and for regional and biome assessment, the MODIS LST product(Wan, 2015). While globally the LST product has a strong linear 1 : 1 relationship for temperature ranging from ?30 to 50°C for both in-situ weather stations and the MODIS LST product, the comparison with the in-situ Tateno weather station in Japan (the only in-situ validation point for theHimawari-8-based LST) shows a clear increasing positive bias for in-situ temperature measurements above approximately 30°C (Martins et al., 2018).This positive bias trend was not present when comparing the Copernicus LST data to the MODIS LST data in the same validation study (Martins et al., 2018). However,multiple comparisons of MODIS daytime LST and insitu weather station data have found that MODIS daytime LST can be overestimated by 5–20°C in some ecosystems (Vancutsem et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2012; Assiri,2017; Phan et al., 2019). Therefore, the MODIS daytime LST dataset may not be a reliable product for validation of the Copernicus LST dataset at higher temperature.

    To assess the degree and consistency of bias of the Copernicus LST product at higher temperature in different climatic zones and ecosystems, Copernicus LST data were compared to BOM weather station temperature data for a series of locations in the northern (warmer) half of Australia. The result of this process, shown alongside the selected BOM weather stations in Fig. 11, again showed an almost linear relationship between increasing temperature and increasing positive bias for the Copernicus LST data. While theR2value is lower, at 0.73, for this analysis versus 0.94 for the main study area of this paper, the same overall pattern is present.

    Fig. 10. Performance of BOM gridded products and satellite products versus DPIRD data for annual, January, and July. Green areas are where only the BOM gridded product has an RMSE at least 0.25°C or 5 mm lower than the equivalent satellite product; red areas are where only the satellite product has an RMSE at least 0.25°C or 5 mm lower than the equivalent; and yellow areas are where the RMSEs of both the BOM gridded product and the relevant satellite product have a difference of less than 0.25°C or 5 mm.

    Applying the correction factor shown in Fig. 11 to the Copernicus northern Australian LST data improves the RMSE from 15.7 to 2.8°C (an improvement of 82%, almost exactly the same improvement ratio for the SWAR). Applying the SWAR correction factor to the northern Australian data reduced the RMSE to 3.0°C. Although an improved result, the difference in RMSE for the different areas indicates that the bias correction may be improved with localized adjustments. Creating a bias correction factor for each weather station in the northern Australian region resulted in a further slight improvement to an RMSE of 2.4°C (an 84% reduction in RMSE compared to the original Copernicus LST product).

    4.2 Effect of land use type and landscape heterogeneity

    With land use type and heterogeneity reported to affect both satellite-derived LST (Martins et al., 2018) and satellite-derived precipitation (Chua et al., 2020), the average RMSE for the monthly data at each DPIRD validation point was compared against land use data for the biascorrected Copernicus LST data and gauge-corrected GSMaP product.

    Land use classifications by ABARES (2001) are extracted for a radius of 2.5 km around each DPIRD validation point (corresponding to a similar area to the Copernicus LST and GSMaP pixels) in Fig. 12. Land use heterogeneity is calculated from the number of different land use classes within this region and the land use type from the land use type covering the largest area within this region. Of the 126 DPIRD validation points, 2 are in urban areas, 4 in conservation regions, 18 in managed forest regions, 26 in pasture grazing regions, and 76 in broadacre cropping regions.

    The results from this process, shown in Fig. 13, indicate that land use heterogeneity has no bearing on the Copernicus LST_BC accuracy or the GSMaP-G product.However, land use type does impact on monthly temperature and precipitation accuracy.

    Fig. 11. Comparison of Copernicus LST and BOM weather station daily maximum temperature data for northern Australia. (a) Locations of BOM weather stations over the K?ppen–Geiger climate zone and (b) LST errors versus Copernicus LST temperatures (equivalent plot to Fig. 2).

    While most of the errors for the LST_BC maximum and minimum temperature products had RMSEs between 0.5 and 1.5°C, managed forest and urban land use types all had errors in some cases higher than the cropping and grazing land use types. More than 90% of the grazing and cropping land use locations had an RMSE of less than 1.5°C for the maximum temperature and 1.0°C for the minimum temperature. While land use heterogeneity based on land use classes was not correlated to temperature accuracy (scatter plots), the variability in vegetation cover for the forest land uses and multiple land cover types within the urban land use classification likely reduces the accuracy of the Copernicus LST_BC product in these regions.

    Precipitation accuracy was similar for all land use types except conservation, which had no locations with an average RMSE better than 15 mm month?1. Precipitation accuracies for grazing and cropping land use types were slightly better than for managed forest land.

    5. Conclusions

    From the accuracy analysis of both ground and satellite-based weather products for the SWAR in this study from January 2015 to December 2019, the BOM gridded temperature and rainfall products provide the most accurate weather data in most regions and months (average monthly temperature RMSE of 0.9°C and monthly precipitation RMSE of 14.0 mm), followed by the BOM weather station data (RMSEs of 1.1°C and 20.0 mm).Calibrated or bias-corrected satellite data generally performed third best (RMSEs of 1.4°C and 23.8 mm) and uncalibrated or uncorrected satellite data were generally the least accurate (RMSEs of 6.0°C and 38.5 mm). These average accuracies are similar to those found in other studies of these weather products in larger and other regions.

    A strong linear bias was found for the daily Copernicus LST product. This bias ranged from approximately?5°C at daily maximum LST of approximately 10°C to over 20°C at LST of 60°C. A linear correction of bias based on the daily maximum LST greatly improved the accuracy of the daily maximum LST from an RMSE of 9.25 to 1.7°C (an improvement of 82%). An assessment of the bias correction from other regions in Australia outside the SWAR found that this linear bias pattern was present in multiple climatic regions although the relative scale of the bias did vary to some degree. For the weather stations outside of the SWAR used for this analysis, applying the SWAR correction factor improved the RMSE from 15.7 to 3.0°C. Creating a bias correction factor for each weather station resulted in a further improvement to an RMSE of 2.4°C (an 84% reduction in RMSE compared with the original Copernicus LST product). The success of this relatively simple bias correction process indicates that a bias-corrected Copernicus LST product is a feasible option, similar to the precipitation gauge corrected GSMaP product.

    Fig. 12. DPIRD weather stations in the SWAR overlaid on land use types.

    Fig. 13. Scatter plots: Land use heterogeneity (number of different land use types within a 25-pixel region) versus satellite weather product accuracy (LST RMSE and GSMaP-G rainfall). Higher number of pixels implies more heterogeneous land use. Histograms: Cumulative proportion of DPIRD sites for increasing RMSE for the five different primary land use classifications.

    The accuracy of the weather products showed both spatial and seasonal varibility. The BOM weather station and gridded products were less accurate in summer at the northern and eastern extents of the study area (where the density of BOM weather stations is markedly reduced).While the bias-corrected satellite temperatures were more accurate in these regions in summer, this product had a marked increase in RMSE in summer over Darling Fault,the main topographic feature of the study area. Minimum temperature was generally better represented by the BOM weather products with the exception of a region along the southern coastal region of the study area.

    The BOM precipitation products were less accurate in the very high rainfall zones (> 750 mm yr?1) in the south–west corner of the study area. While the satellite precipitation products did achieve similar accuracies to the BOM products in some areas and seasons, there was no location or month where the satellite precipitation products were markedly more accurate than the BOM precipitation products.

    In addition to mapping the spatial and seasonal accuracy of each weather product, a series of maps have been generated to highlight regions and months where the BOM gridded products are more or less accurate than the satellite weather products. This allows users of weather data to both understand the accuracy limitations of weather data for different locations as well as select the best performing weather product based on their location and time of year.

    6. Data availability

    Monthly DPIRD weather station data used for this analysis are available in Comma Separated Variable format from https://doi.org/10.25917/fry7-nx79 (Campbell, 2021). Maps of statistical analysis on an aggregated annual and monthly basis are also available from this location.

    猜你喜歡
    品種鑒定秈型雜交種
    廣適秈型兩系不育系7011S
    早秈型香稻三系不育系禾5A的選育與應(yīng)用
    多舉措促玉米雜交種制提質(zhì)增產(chǎn)
    提高桑蠶一代雜交種雜交率的方法和措施
    雜交種子為什么不能留種
    植物DNA條形碼鑒定研究進(jìn)展
    國(guó)家2015年審定通過的水稻新品種(上)
    廣西壯族自治區(qū)2015年審定通過的水稻新品種(上)
    藏藥鑒定及質(zhì)量控制研究現(xiàn)狀
    NA指紋在水稻品種鑒定中的應(yīng)用與展望
    亚洲九九香蕉| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| av视频在线观看入口| 一个人免费在线观看电影 | 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 色视频www国产| 精品久久久久久成人av| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 天堂网av新在线| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 久久精品人妻少妇| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 国产高清三级在线| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 99久久精品热视频| 日韩欧美三级三区| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 一级毛片精品| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 久久国产精品影院| 91在线观看av| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 黄色成人免费大全| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 丁香欧美五月| 97超视频在线观看视频| 久久久久国内视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 精品福利观看| 午夜a级毛片| or卡值多少钱| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | av在线天堂中文字幕| aaaaa片日本免费| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 88av欧美| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 国产精品永久免费网站| 黄色成人免费大全| 日本在线视频免费播放| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| ponron亚洲| 久久香蕉国产精品| 操出白浆在线播放| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 老司机福利观看| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 在线观看一区二区三区| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 天堂√8在线中文| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 日本a在线网址| 国产精品久久视频播放| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 91老司机精品| 欧美日韩精品网址| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 九色成人免费人妻av| a在线观看视频网站| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 日韩有码中文字幕| 精品久久久久久久末码| 禁无遮挡网站| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 国产69精品久久久久777片 | 99视频精品全部免费 在线 | 成人av在线播放网站| 免费看日本二区| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| av天堂中文字幕网| 在线视频色国产色| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 成人三级黄色视频| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 99久国产av精品| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲精品在线美女| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 99热精品在线国产| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 99久久精品热视频| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 少妇的逼水好多| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 少妇丰满av| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 99久久精品热视频| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 黄色 视频免费看| 在线免费观看的www视频| 国产精品久久视频播放| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 日本 欧美在线| 97碰自拍视频| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 午夜免费激情av| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久99热这里只有精品18| av视频在线观看入口| www国产在线视频色| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 午夜两性在线视频| 久久这里只有精品中国| 又大又爽又粗| 少妇的逼水好多| 久久久成人免费电影| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 香蕉久久夜色| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 午夜福利欧美成人| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 精品久久久久久久末码| 99国产精品99久久久久| 少妇丰满av| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | a在线观看视频网站| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 国产乱人视频| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 色在线成人网| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 香蕉久久夜色| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 美女高潮的动态| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 亚洲第一电影网av| 精品人妻1区二区| 中国美女看黄片| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| h日本视频在线播放| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 亚洲成人久久性| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 中文字幕久久专区| av欧美777| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 999精品在线视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆 | 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 国产成人精品无人区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 很黄的视频免费| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 日本a在线网址| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 99久久精品热视频| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 欧美日韩黄片免| av视频在线观看入口| 成人精品一区二区免费| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| ponron亚洲| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 亚洲av成人av| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 曰老女人黄片| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| av片东京热男人的天堂| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品 国内视频| 精品久久久久久成人av| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 欧美午夜高清在线| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 脱女人内裤的视频| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 夜夜爽天天搞| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 在线视频色国产色| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 免费av毛片视频| 1024香蕉在线观看| 久久九九热精品免费| 久久久精品大字幕| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 欧美大码av| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| xxx96com| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 久久久成人免费电影| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 久久久成人免费电影| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 亚洲国产色片| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 亚洲片人在线观看| avwww免费| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 美女午夜性视频免费| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 中文资源天堂在线| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| xxx96com| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 99久久国产精品久久久| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 午夜影院日韩av| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 无限看片的www在线观看| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 波多野结衣高清作品| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产精品一及| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 午夜a级毛片| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲片人在线观看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| xxxwww97欧美| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 很黄的视频免费| 国产av在哪里看| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| aaaaa片日本免费| 此物有八面人人有两片| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 免费看日本二区| 搡老岳熟女国产| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 精品国产三级普通话版| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 深夜精品福利| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 亚洲无线在线观看| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 久久亚洲真实| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 香蕉国产在线看| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 美女高潮的动态| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 两个人看的免费小视频| 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 免费看十八禁软件| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 国产单亲对白刺激| 国产高清激情床上av| 一本精品99久久精品77| 波多野结衣高清作品| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 性色avwww在线观看| av在线蜜桃| 国产成人av教育| 日本与韩国留学比较| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 99久久精品热视频| 99re在线观看精品视频| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 一夜夜www| 欧美日韩精品网址| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 精品电影一区二区在线| 日本黄色片子视频| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 国产熟女xx| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 国产成人av教育| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 国产精品永久免费网站| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 日日夜夜操网爽| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 操出白浆在线播放| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 免费高清视频大片| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国模一区二区三区四区视频 | 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 亚洲人成网站高清观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 免费av不卡在线播放| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 亚洲最大成人中文| 日本一二三区视频观看| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 青草久久国产| 最好的美女福利视频网| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 亚洲av熟女| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 美女黄网站色视频| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| av中文乱码字幕在线| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 国产美女午夜福利| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 99热精品在线国产| cao死你这个sao货| 一区二区三区激情视频| 美女高潮的动态| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 成人av在线播放网站| 99re在线观看精品视频| 国产高清三级在线| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 久久香蕉精品热| 国产69精品久久久久777片 | 香蕉久久夜色| 久久性视频一级片| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 国产亚洲欧美98| 亚洲av美国av| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| av国产免费在线观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 欧美zozozo另类| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 露出奶头的视频| 全区人妻精品视频| 免费看日本二区| 久久精品影院6| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 久久久久久人人人人人| 国产日本99.免费观看| 美女大奶头视频| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 日本在线视频免费播放| 久久精品影院6| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 我要搜黄色片| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 日韩高清综合在线| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| svipshipincom国产片| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 脱女人内裤的视频| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| av视频在线观看入口| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 国产成人精品无人区| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 精品福利观看|