Influence of species and rain event characteristics on stemflow volume in a temperate mixed oak-beech stand

Hydrological Processes

Volumn 22, Issue 22, 2008, Pages 4455-4466

  André, Frédéric ^a   Jonard, Mathieu ^a   Ponette, Quentin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Fagus sylvatica; Mixed species stand; Quercus petraea; Rain event; Stemflow; Storage capacity

Indexed keywords

FAGUS SYLVATICA; MIXED-SPECIES STAND; QUERCUS PETRAEA; RAIN EVENT; STEMFLOW; STORAGE CAPACITY;

DROUGHT; FORESTRY; WIND EFFECTS;

RAIN;

DECIDUOUS TREE; EVAPORATION; LEAF; MIXED FOREST; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLYCULTURE; RAINFALL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STEMFLOW; TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENT; WIND VELOCITY;

DROUGHT; FAGUS SYLVATICA; FORESTRY; QUERCUS PETRAEA; RAIN; SPECIES IDENTIFICATION; STORAGE; WIND;

FAGUS; FAGUS SYLVATICA; QUERCUS PETRAEA;

EID: 67650340414     PISSN: 08856087     EISSN: 10991085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7048     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allen RG, Smith M, Perrier A, Pereira LS. 1994a. An update for the calculation of reference evapotranspiration. ICID Bulletin 43(2): 1-33.
2. Allen RG, Smith M, Pereira LS., Perrier A. 1994b. An update for the calculation of reference evapotranspiration. ICID Bulletin 43(2): 35-87.
3. André F. 2007. Influence of the heterogeneity of canopy structure on the spatio-temporal variability of atmospheric deposition within a mixed oak-beech stand. PhD dissertation, Louvain-la-Neuve. http://www.efor.ucl.ac.be/staff/CV/F%20ANDRE%20-%20 Deposition%20in%20mixed%20stand.pdf [Last visited: December 2007].
4. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q. 2008. Precipitation water storage capacity in a temperate mixed oak-beech canopy. Hydrological Processes (in press). DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7013.
5. Aussenac G. 1970. Action du couvert forestier sur la distribution au sol des précipitations. Annals of Forest Science 27(4): 383-399.
6. Aussenac G, Boulangeat C. 1980. Interception des précipitations et évapotranspiration réelle dans des peuplements de feuillus (Fagus sylvatica L.) et de résineux (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb) Franco). Annals of Forest Science 37(2): 91-107.
7. Brown H, Prescott R. 1999. Applied Mixed Models in Medicine. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
8. Calder IR, Kidd CHR. 1978. A note on the dynamic calibration of tipping-bucket gauges. Journal of Hydrology 39: 383-386. DOI:10.1016/0022-1694(78)90013-6.
9. Carlyle-Moses DE, Price AG. 2006. Growing season stemflow production within a deciduous forest of southern Ontario. Hydrological Processes 20: 3651-3663. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6380.
10. Chang SC, Matzner E. 2000. The effect of beech stemflow on spatial pattern of soil solution chemistry and seepage fluxes in a mixed beech/ oak stand. Hydrological Processes 14(1): 135-144. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(200001)14 : 1<135::AID-HYP915> 3.0.CO;2-R.
11. Crockford RH, Richardson DP. 1990. Partitioning of rainfall in a eucalypt forest and pine plantation in southeastern Australia: III Determination of the canopy storage capacity of a dry sclerophyll eucalipt forest. Hydrological Processes 4(2): 157-167.
12. Crockford RH, Richardson DP. 2000. Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of forest type, ground cover and climate. Hydrological Processes 14(16-17): 2903-2920. DOI: 10.1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14 : 16/ 17<2903::AID-HYP126 >3.0.CO;2-6.
13. Dolman AJ. 1987. Summer and winter rainfall interception in an oak forest. Predictions with an analytical and a numerical simulation model. Journal of Hydrology 90(1-2): 1-9. DOI:10.1016/ 0022-1694(87)90169-7.
14. Durocher MG. 1990. Monitoring spatial variability of forest interception. Hydrological Processes 4(3): 215-229.
15. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall: New York.
16. Falkengren-Grerup U. 1989. Effect of stemflow on beech forest soils and vegetation in Southern Sweden. Journal of Applied Ecology 26(1): 341-352.
17. Gesper PL, Holowaychuck N. 1970. Effects of stemflow water on a Miami soil under a beech tree. I. Morphological and physical properties. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 34: 779-786.
18. Gesper PL, Holowaychuck N. 1971. Some effects of stemflow from forest canopy trees on chemical properties of soils. Ecology 52(4): 692-702.
19. Granier A, Biron P, Lemoine D. 2000. Water balance, transpiration and canopy conductance in two beech stands. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100: 291-308. DOI:10.1016/S0168-1923(99)00151-3.
20. Herwitz SR. 1985. Interception storage capacities of tropical rainforest canopy trees. Journal of Hydrology 77(1-4): 237-252. DOI:10.1016/0022-1694(85)90209-4.
21. Herwitz SR. 1987. Raindrop impact and water flow on the vegetative surfaces of trees and the effects on stemflow and throughfall generation. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 12: 425-432.
22. Herwitz SR. 1988. Buttresses of tropical rainforest trees influence hillslope processes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 13: 563-567.
23. Horton RE. 1919. Rainfall interception. Monthly Weather Review 47(9): 605-623.
24. Jonard M, André F, Ponette Q. 2006. Modelling leaf dispersal in mixed hardwood forests using a ballistic approach. Ecology 87(9): 2306-2318. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2306:MLDIMH]2.0. CO;2.
25. Keim RF, Skaugset AE, Weiler M. 2005. Temporal persistence of spatial patterns in throughfall. Journal of Hydrology 314(1-4): 263-274. DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.045.
26. Kittredge J., Loughead HJ, Mazurak A. 1941. Interception and stemflow in a pine plantation. Journal of Forestry 39: 505-522.
27. Kuraji K, Yuri T, Nobuaki T, Isamu K. 2001. Generation of stemflow volume and chemistry in a mature Japanese cypress forest. Hydrological Processes 15(10): 1967-1978. DOI: 10.1002/ hyp.250.
28. Leonard RE. 1961. Interception of precipitation by northern hardwoods. US Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Paper 159.
29. Levia DF., Frost EE. 2003. A review and evaluation of stemflow literature in the hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles of forested and agricultural ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology 274(1-4): 1-29. DOI:10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00399-2.
30. Levia DF, Herwitz SR. 2005. Interspecific variation of bark water storage capacity of three deciduous tree species in relation to stemflow yield and solute flux to forest soils. Catena 64(1): 117-137. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2005.08.001.
31. Link TE, Unsworth M, Marks D. 2004. The dynamics of rainfall interception by a seasonal temperate rainforest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 124(3-4): 171-191. DOI:10.1016/ j.agrformet.2004.01.010.
32. ® System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary.
33. Matschonat G, Falkengren-Grerup U. 2000. Recovery of soil pH, cation-exchange capacity and the saturation of exchange sites from stemflow-induced soil acidification in three Swedish beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 15(1): 39-48. DOI: 10.1080/02827580050160457.
34. Monteith JL. 1965. Evaporation and the environment. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 16: 205-234.
35. Návar J. 1993. The causes of stemflow variation in three semi-arid growing species of northeastern Mexico. Journal of Hydrology 115(1-4): 51-63. DOI:10.1016/0022-1694(90)90197-6.
36. Pypker TG, Unsworth MH, Bond BJ. 2006a. The role of epiphytes in rainfall interception by forests in the Pacific Northwest. I. Laboratory measurements of water storage. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(4): 809-818. DOI: 10.1139/X05-298.
37. Pypker TG, Unsworth MH, Bond BJ. 2006b. The role of epiphytes in rainfall interception by forests in the Pacific Northwest. II. Field measurements at the branch and canopy scale. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(4): 819-832. DOI: 10.1139/X05-286.
38. Reynolds ERC, Henderson CS. 1967. Rainfall interception by Beech, Larch and Norway Spruce. Forestry 40: 165-184.
39. Schnock G. 1970. Le bilan d'eau et ses principales composantes dans une chênaie mélangée calcicole de Haute-Belgique (Bois de Virelles-Blaimont). PhD dissertation, ULB, Bruxelles.
40. Staelens J, De Schrijver A, Verheyen K, Verhoest NEC. 2008. Rainfall partitioning into throughfall, stemflow, and interception within a single beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) canopy: influence of foliation, rain event characteristics, and meteorology. Hydrological Processes 22(1): 33-45. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6610.
41. Tang C. 1996. Interception and recharge processes beneath a Pinus elliotii forest. Hydrological Processes 10(11): 1427-1434. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199611)10 : 11<1427::AID-HYP382>3.0. CO;2-3.
42. Thompson FB. 1972. Rainfall interception by oak coppice (Quercus robur, L.). In Research Papers in Forest Meteorology, Taylor JA (eds). Cambrian News: Aberystwyth; 59-74.
43. Trimble GR, Weitzmann S. 1954. Effect of a hardwood forest canopy on rainfall intensities. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35: 226-234.
44. Vanseveren JP. 1969. L'index foliaire et sa mesure par photoplanimétrie. Bulletin de la Société royale de Botanique de Belgique 102: 373-385.
45. White EJ, Carlisle A. 1968. The interception of rainfall by a mixed deciduous woodland. Quaterly Journal of Forestry 62: 310-320.
46. Xiao QF, McPherson EG, Ustin SL, Grismer ME, Simpson JR. 2000. Winter rainfall interception by two mature open-grown trees in Davis, California. Hydrological Processes 14(4): 763-784.