1994
DOI: 10.2307/1551778
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Water Loss from the Floor of a Subarctic Forest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Aerodynamic resistance r a (d/m) was calculated following methods outlined in Brutsaert (1975), Shuttleworth (1993) and Monteith (1981). Canopy resistance r c (d/m) was calculated with the revised version of the Jarvis (1976) and Verseghy et al (1993) expressions (Lafleur and Schreader, 1994). Spence and Rouse (2002) reported an accuracy of 20% with methods similar to those selected for this study.…”
Section: Lake Soil and Bedrock Storagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aerodynamic resistance r a (d/m) was calculated following methods outlined in Brutsaert (1975), Shuttleworth (1993) and Monteith (1981). Canopy resistance r c (d/m) was calculated with the revised version of the Jarvis (1976) and Verseghy et al (1993) expressions (Lafleur and Schreader, 1994). Spence and Rouse (2002) reported an accuracy of 20% with methods similar to those selected for this study.…”
Section: Lake Soil and Bedrock Storagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contour intervals are 0.5 m. Flow is from Lake 690 at the left to Vital Lake at the right. The picture of the wetland in the lower panel is looking upstream towards Lake 690 Verseghy et al (1993) expressions using environmental conductance functions of incoming solar radiation and D (Lafleur and Schreader 1994). Parts of the wetland were flooded throughout the study period.…”
Section: Water Budgetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the daily readings, water was added to each pan so that their water levels were brought back to that of the fixed marks. In addition, 10 soil lysimeters (0Ð19-m diameter; same as the evaporation pans) were used to measure the daily evapotranspiration from lichen and moss surfaces gravimetrically following the method of Lafleur and Schreader (1994). As drainage was not permitted, the monolith of soil and the surface vegetation in the lysimeters were carefully replaced after large rain events.…”
Section: Evapotranspirationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The greater evaporative loss from moss soils relative to those underlain by lichen was mostly due to the differences in nearsurface moisture availability (as detailed in the following section). The difference in evaporation rates between moss and melt water pools was most likely due to the water wicking capability of moss species (Vitt, 2000), their greater aerodynamic roughness compared to pools, and to their higher landscape position relative to the pools (Lafleur and Schreader, 1994). Mean daily evapotranspiration for the plateau weighted according to the proportion of moss, lichen and pools was 1Ð4 š 0Ð5 mm for the 2004 study period, and 1Ð5 š 0Ð5 mm for the 2005 study period.…”
Section: Snowmelt (M) Rainfall (P) and Evapotranspiration (Et)mentioning
confidence: 99%