首页> 外文OA文献 >Rainfall interception modelling: is the wet bulb approach adequate to estimate mean evaporation rate from wet/saturated canopies in all forest types?
【2h】

Rainfall interception modelling: is the wet bulb approach adequate to estimate mean evaporation rate from wet/saturated canopies in all forest types?

机译:降雨拦截模型:湿球方法是否足以估算所有森林类型中湿/饱和檐篷的平均蒸发速率?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The Penman–Monteith equation has been widely used to estimate the maximum evaporation rate (E) from wet/saturated forest canopies, regardless of canopy cover fraction. Forests are then represented as a big leaf and interception loss considered essentially as a one-dimensional process. With increasing forest sparseness the assumptions behind this big leaf approach become questionable. In sparse forests it might be better to model E and interception loss at the tree level assuming that the individual tree crowns behave as wet bulbs (‘‘wet bulb approach”). In this study, and for five different forest types and climate conditions, interception loss measurements were compared to modelled values (Gash’s interception model) based on estimates of E by the Penman–Monteith and the wet bulb approaches. Results show that the wet bulb approach is a good, and less data demanding, alternative to estimate E when the forest canopy is fully ventilated (very sparse forests with a narrow canopy depth). When the canopy is not fully ventilated, the wet bulb approach requires a reduction of leaf area index to the upper, more ventilated parts of the canopy, needing data on the vertical leaf area distribution, which is seldom-available. In such cases, the Penman–Monteith approach seems preferable. Our data also show that canopy cover does not per se allow us to identify if a forest canopy is fully ventilated or not. New methodologies of sensitivity analyses applied to Gash’s model showed that a correct estimate of E is critical for the proper modelling of interception loss.
机译:Penman–Monteith方程已被广泛用于估算湿/饱和林冠层的最大蒸发速率(E),而不受冠层覆盖率的影响。然后,森林被表示为一片大叶子,而拦截损失则基本上被视为一维过程。随着森林稀疏性的增加,这种大叶方法背后的假设变得令人怀疑。在稀疏的森林中,最好假设树木的树冠像湿球一样(“湿球法”),在树级别上模拟E和截距损失。在这项研究中,针对五种不同的森林类型和气候条件,将截留损耗的测量结果与基于Penman–Monteith估计的E和湿球法的模拟值(Gash的截留模型)进行了比较。结果表明,湿球法是一种很好的方法,并且对数据的要求较低,可以在林冠充分通风(树冠深度很窄的稀疏森林)时估计E。当树冠未完全通风时,湿球法需要将树冠的叶面积指数降低到上部,通风程度更高的地方,这需要很少的垂直叶面积分布数据。在这种情况下,Penman-Monteith方法似乎更可取。我们的数据还表明,树冠覆盖本身并不能使我们确定森林树冠是否完全通风。应用于Gash模型的敏感性分析的新方法表明,正确估计E值对于正确建立拦截损耗模型至关重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号