1996
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1085(199612)10:12<1591::aid-hyp503>3.3.co;2-#
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
Winter Radiation Extinction and Reflection in a Boreal Pine Canopy: Measurements and Modelling
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
20
20
5
1
Citation Types
5
50
0
1
Year Published
2000
2025
Publication Types
Select...
39
3
2
Relationship
4
40
Authors
Journals
Cited by 44 publications
(56 citation statements)
References 0 publications
5
50
0
1
“…The average maximum accumulation for the open catchment was 146 mm, suggesting that in this climate (where blowing snow is unimportant), low LAIЈ forests will have similar maximum snow accumulation to open sites. This is consistent with the observations of forest effects on maximum snow accumulation found in a literature survey of North American measurements by Pomeroy and Gray (1995) and predictive equations by Kuz'min (1960) and Pomeroy et al (2002).…”
Section: Sensitivity Of Premelt Swe To Forest Coversupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The average maximum accumulation for the open catchment was 146 mm, suggesting that in this climate (where blowing snow is unimportant), low LAIЈ forests will have similar maximum snow accumulation to open sites. This is consistent with the observations of forest effects on maximum snow accumulation found in a literature survey of North American measurements by Pomeroy and Gray (1995) and predictive equations by Kuz'min (1960) and Pomeroy et al (2002).…”
Section: Sensitivity Of Premelt Swe To Forest Coversupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The dominant energy balance component contributing to snowmelt in the control plot was Q *, similar to studies in boreal forests (Price and Dunne, 1976; Pomeroy and Dion, 1996; Link and Marks, 1999). As in beetle‐killed and cleared stands, wildfire disturbance resulted in negative L *, as L ↑ from the snow surface was not compensated by L ↓ from the forest canopy (Boon, 2009); therefore, the dominant energy balance component contributing to snowmelt in the burned plot was K *.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…This method (hereinafter called M1) is based on the following assumptions: (1) A relationship between snow water equivalent and snow cover fraction as in ECHAM4; (2) A linear relationship between surface temperature and snow albedo as in ECHAM4 (section 2); (3) A forest fraction retrieved from the ECHAM4 global surface boundary fields; (4) An albedo of snow‐free evergreen needleleaf forest equal to 0.13 [ Claussen et al , 1994; Briegleb et al , 1986]; (5) An albedo of snow‐free tundra equal to 0.17 [ Claussen et al , 1994; Briegleb et al , 1986]; (6) A snow‐covered forest albedo equal to 0.2. This value is confirmed by observations presented by Harding and Pomeroy [1996], Pomeroy and Dion [1996], and Hedstrom and Pomeroy [1998]; (7) A snow water equivalent derived from the global snow depth climatology of the U.S. Air Force Environmental Technical Application Center (USAF/ ETAC) as documented in Foster and Davy [1988] (1.0° × 1.0° resolution). Transformation from snow depth into snow water equivalent according to Verseghy [1991].…”
Section: Comparison Of Available Global Surface Albedo Climatologiessupporting
confidence: 81%
