1999
DOI: 10.1016/s1464-1909(99)00085-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of interception in the water budget of spruce stands in the Eastern Ore Mountains/Germany

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fogwater droplets and their vertical movement were confirmed by field measurements [2,3], reminding a possible contribution from the micro-droplets. The phenomenon of extraordinarily high interception rates (higher than the Penman-Monteith equation rate) was partially explained by different perspectives: an extra energy coming from horizontal transfers (from dry locations to raining locations, or from warmer oceans to cooler forests) might lead to the high evaporation rate [4,5], the aerodynamic resistance of the canopy could be very low to force a high evaporation rate [5,6], the interception rate was related to rainfall rate and exceeded the net radiation [7], or the wind gusts and splashed droplets might enhance evaporation rates [8,9]. But neither of these studies or suggestions has given a thorough explanation for the phenomenon.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fogwater droplets and their vertical movement were confirmed by field measurements [2,3], reminding a possible contribution from the micro-droplets. The phenomenon of extraordinarily high interception rates (higher than the Penman-Monteith equation rate) was partially explained by different perspectives: an extra energy coming from horizontal transfers (from dry locations to raining locations, or from warmer oceans to cooler forests) might lead to the high evaporation rate [4,5], the aerodynamic resistance of the canopy could be very low to force a high evaporation rate [5,6], the interception rate was related to rainfall rate and exceeded the net radiation [7], or the wind gusts and splashed droplets might enhance evaporation rates [8,9]. But neither of these studies or suggestions has given a thorough explanation for the phenomenon.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The vegetation gathers water from wind-blown fog and thus captures a significant contribution to the hydrological cycle and nutrient budget. The contribution of fog water as an additional water source to the hydrological budget of forest ecosystems is well documented (Zadroga 1981;Hutley et al 1997;Zimmermann et al 1999;DeFelice 2002;Liu et al 2004). The recognition of the ecological value of montane cloud forests led to the establishment of various international initiatives that aim at the implementation of research, conservation and restoration activities (Aldrich 1998;Aldrich et al 2000;Bubb et al 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is known that approximately 10 to 25% of annual precipitation is lost by canopy interception, depending on evaporation power of the air, storm characteristics, and vegetation (Chang 2003). Nevertheless, fog condensed in forest canopy can contribute significant amounts of water to the ecosystem budget especially in the areas with high annual numbers of foggy days (Hutley et al 1997;Zimmermann et al 1999;DeFelice 2002;Liu et al 2004;Bruijnzeel et al 2005). The studied locality belongs to the places with the highest average annual number of foggy days (more than 150 according to Tolasz et al 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%