A comparison of models simulating rainfall interception of forests

Lankreijer, Harry; Hendriks, M.J.; Klaassen, Wim

doi:10.1016/0168-1923(93)90028-g

Cited by 86 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The measurements by Gash were analysed using the aerodynamic roughness length for momentum transport. A correction for the roughness length for water vapour transport (Lankreijer et al, 1993) would make the results consistent with those of Stewart (1977) and the present study. Dunin et al (1988), using microlysimetry, found an ), although extreme evaporation rates up to 0.8 mm h Ϫ1 were found.…”

Section: ϫ2supporting

confidence: 77%

“…When only water storage capacity would be increased, the modelling of interception would deteriorate. In order to yield realistic results, it is recommended to decrease the evaporation rate during rain as well, for instance by using an appropriate roughness length for water vapour transport (Lankreijer et al, 1993). A decrease of evaporation rate does not conflict with the studies of Stewart (1977) and Gash (1979) (see Section 5.2), as the observations by Stewart (1977) were restricted to the daytime.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A previous study by Lankreijer et al (1993) showed that the evaporation rate can be decreased with an appropriate resistance for water vapour transport.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Water storage and evaporation as constituents of rainfall interception

Klaassen

Bosveld

Water

1998

Journal of Hydrology

227

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intercepted rainfall may be evaporated during or after the rain event. Intercepted rain is generally determined as the difference between rainfall measurements outside and inside the forest. Such measurements are often used to discriminate between water storage and evaporation during rain as well. Two well-accepted methods underestimate water storage by a factor two as compared to direct observations. The underestimation of storage is compensated by an overestimation of evaporation during rain by a factor of three. The direct observations of water storage and evaporation appear to agree with previous direct observations. Thus, it is concluded that these observations are representative. Also, our results based on methods using only rainfall measurements inside and outside the forest appear to agree with previous results. This would result in the conclusion that the common methods systematically underestimate water storage and overestimate evaporation during rain. Indeed, the systematic errors can be explained by the neglect of drainage before saturation. Water storage is better simulated assuming an exponential saturation of a larger storage capacity. A smaller evaporation can be simulated using an appropriate resistance to vapour transport. The observations in dense coniferous forest showed water storage to be the dominant process in rainfall interception, but this conclusion should not be generalized to other forests and climates. Direct observations of water storage and evaporation are recommended to build a realistic set of parameters for rainfall interception studies of the main vegetation types. ᭧

show abstract

Section: ϫ2supporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water storage and evaporation as constituents of rainfall interception

Klaassen

Bosveld

Water

1998

Journal of Hydrology

227

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The leaf boundary resistance is restricted to heat transport and is not used for momentum transport. The difference between heat and momentum transport has initiated a correction on the atmospheric resistance in the Penman-Monteith equation [Lankreijer et al, 1993[Lankreijer et al, , 1999 and motivates the estimation of the sensitivity of evaporation to the leaf boundary resistance in the present study. Horizontal variability of the forest is included in the model to validate the corrections on E pM for incomplete wetness and canopy cover (equations (2) and (3)).…”

Section: Evaporation From a Two-dimensional Canopymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaporation From rain‐wetted forest in relation to canopy wetness, canopy cover, and net radiation

Klaassen¹

2001

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Evaporation from wet canopies is commonly calculated using E pM , the Penman-Monteith equation with zero surface resistance. However, several observations show a lower evaporation from rain-wetted forest. Possible causes for the difference between E pM and experiments are evaluated to provide rules for the simulation of rainfall interception by forest canopies. The evaluation is executed using a micrometeorological model with a detailed representation of the forest canopy. Simulated results are compared with experimental results. In spite of theoretical reservations the evaporation of completely wet forest appears to agree with EpM. Evaporation from wet forest appears mainly dependent on net radiation. Rainfall interception is related to evaporation from the canopy. Evaporation from the canopy appears proportional with the square root of canopy cover and sensitive to canopy wetness. An accurate estimate of canopy wetness is needed to use E pM for the calculation of evaporation from rain-wetted forest.

show abstract

“…During rainy days, AET normally is higher than Penman-PET because of the strong coupling between the forest canopy and the atmosphere, resulting in a high evaporation rate from the wet canopy (Lankreijer et al, 1993), generally an order of magnitude greater than water transpiration rate (Dolman, 1987) Lakhani and Miller (1980) (1990-1991), very dry (1991-1992) and moderately dry (1992)(1993). During the 3 studied years, the pluviometric gradient from which we started a priori was maintained; the differences between plots remained fairly constant during the 3 years, in relative terms (88, 78 and 59% for S2, S3 and S4, respectively, relative to rainfall in S1).…”

Section: Calculation Of Water Balancementioning

confidence: 99%