Hydrologie fluviale de l'Europe continentale

Maurice, André; Frécaut, René

doi:10.3406/rgest.1962.1810

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, 19th century stemflow observers were quite keen. Very early (in 1881) the stemflow process was already conceptually described as a "funnel" [29] (similar to Herwitz [86] over a century later, in 1986). Researchers sought to describe the structure of the canopy "funnel" [35] and link these structures to variability in stemflow yield [16,37,38].…”

Section: The Rise Of Stemflowmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Soon after the installation of the Saxon forest-meteorological observatories, a similar national observatory network was deployed in seven sites throughout the (then, Kingdom of) Bavaria, Germany [14]. By the end of the 1860s, observatories for estimating precipitation partitions beneath forests and crops had been established throughout Europe [26][27][28][29] (Figure 1). Before 1870, measurements on throughfall (and its spatiotemporal variability), stemflow, litter leachate, and interception storage and evaporation components had begun (supplementary Table S1 includes station coordinates).…”

Section: Forest Hydrometeorological Monitoring During the 19th Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geosciences 2019, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences Once stemflow was recognized, equivalent research attention was given to this flux in comparison to throughfall and interception [16,24,34,35,37], which is surprising considering that stemflow was little-researched, compared to other precipitation partitioning fluxes, by modern scientists until the recent decade [69,70] and still is not integrated into any large-scale hydrologic or dynamic vegetation model [71,72]. The relative proportions of stemflow per unit canopy area were reported for common forestry and ornamental tree species of central Europe [11,23,29,30] (Figure 6a), and the range of relative stemflow reported in the literature reviews [11,22,23] was within, or near to, the range reported in more recent studies of these species: Pinus, 0.7% v 0.4-1.6% [73,74], Picea, 1.4% v 0.1-3.0% [75,76], Quercus, 5.7% v 0.9-3.5% [77], Acer, 6% v 0.6-4.8% [78][79][80], and Fagus, 12% v 4.9-11.5% [74,76,81] species. Ney [16,37] and Riegler [35] not only reported that stemflow yields increased after leaf senescence, but Ney [16] presented results showing that the stemflow response to storm size also changed with the canopy's leaf state (Figure 6b).…”

Section: The Rise Of Stemflowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Early European Observations of Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of 19th Century Findings

Friesen

Stan

2019

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first contact between precipitation and the land surface is often a plant canopy. The resulting precipitation partitioning by vegetation returns water back to the atmosphere (evaporation of intercepted precipitation) and redistributes water to the subcanopy surface as a “drip” flux (throughfall) and water that drains down plant stems (stemflow). Prior to the first benchmark publication of the field by Horton in 1919, European observatories and experimental stations had been observing precipitation partitioning since the mid-19th century. In this paper, we describe these early monitoring networks and studies of precipitation partitioning and show the impressive level of detail. Next to a description of the early studies, results included in this synthesis have been digitized and analyzed to compare them to recent studies. Although many early studies lack modern statistical analyses and monitoring tools that have become standard today, they had many strengths (not necessarily shared by every study, of course), including: A rigorous level of detail regarding stand characteristics (which is often lacking in modern ecohydrological studies); high-resolution spatiotemporal throughfall experiments; and chronosequential data collection and analysis. Moreover, these early studies reveal the roots of interest in precipitation partitioning processes and represent a generally forgotten piece of history shared by the hydrology, meteorology, forestry, and agricultural scientific communities. These studies are therefore relevant today and we hope modern scientists interested in plant-precipitation interactions will find new inspiration in our synthesis and evaluation of this literature.

show abstract

Section: The Rise Of Stemflowmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Forest Hydrometeorological Monitoring During the 19th Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Rise Of Stemflowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early European Observations of Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of 19th Century Findings

Friesen

Stan

2019

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Rise Of Stemflowmentioning

confidence: 96%

Early European Observations of Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of 19th Century Findings

Friesen¹,

Stan²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>The first contact between precipitation and the land surface is often a plant canopy. The resulting precipitation partitioning by vegetation returns water back to the atmosphere (evaporation of intercepted precipitation) and redistributes water to the subcanopy surface as a &#8220;drip&#8221; flux (throughfall) and water that drains down plant stems (stemflow). Prior to the first benchmark publication of the field by Horton in 1919, European observatories and experimental stations had been observing precipitation partitioning since the mid-19th century. In this paper, we describe these early monitoring networks and studies of precipitation partitioning and show the impressive level of detail. Next to a description of the early studies, results included in this synthesis have been digitized and analyzed to compare them to recent studies. Although many early studies lack modern statistical analyses and monitoring tools that have become standard today, they had many strengths (not necessarily shared by every study, of course), including: A rigorous level of detail regarding stand characteristics (which is often lacking in modern ecohydrological studies); high-resolution spatiotemporal throughfall experiments; and chronosequential data collection and analysis. Moreover, these early studies reveal the roots of interest in precipitation partitioning processes and represent a generally forgotten piece of history shared by the hydrology, meteorology, forestry, and agricultural scientific communities. These studies are therefore relevant today and we hope modern scientists interested in plant-precipitation interactions will find new inspiration in our synthesis and evaluation of this literature.</p>

show abstract

Precipitation Partitioning, or to the Surface and Back Again: Historical Overview of the First Process in the Terrestrial Hydrologic Pathway

Stan

Friesen

2020

Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrologie fluviale de l'Europe continentale

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Early European Observations of Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of 19th Century Findings

Early European Observations of Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of 19th Century Findings

Early European Observations of Precipitation Partitioning by Vegetation: A Synthesis and Evaluation of 19th Century Findings

Precipitation Partitioning, or to the Surface and Back Again: Historical Overview of the First Process in the Terrestrial Hydrologic Pathway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About