Title: Rainfall interception and the coupled surface water and energy balance
Authors: VAN DIJK ALBERT I.J.M.GASH J. H.VAN GORSEL EVABLANKEN P.D.CESCATTI ALESSANDROEMMEL CARMENGIELEN BERTHARMAN IAN NKIELY GERALDMERBOLD LUTZMONTAGNANI LEONARDOMOORS EDDYSOTTOCORNOLA MATTEOVARLAGIN ANDREJWILLIAMS CHRISTOPHERWOHLFAHRT GEORG
Citation: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY vol. 214-215 p. 402-415
Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Publication Year: 2015
JRC N°: JRC99999
ISSN: 0168-1923
URI: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016819231500711X?via%3Dihub
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC99999
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.006
Type: Articles in periodicals and books
Abstract: Evaporation from wet canopies (E) can return up to half of incident rainfall back into the atmosphere andis a major cause of the difference in water use between forests and short vegetation. Canopy water budgetmeasurements often suggest values of E during rainfall that are several times greater than those predictedfrom Penman–Monteith theory. Our literature review identified potential issues with both estimationapproaches, producing several hypotheses that were tested using micrometeorological observations from128 FLUXNET sites world-wide. The analysis shows that FLUXNET eddy-covariance measurements tend toprovide unreliable measurements of E during rainfall. However, the other micrometeorological FLUXNETobservations do provide clues as to why conventional Penman–Monteith applications underestimateE. Aerodynamic exchange rather than radiation often drives E during rainfall, and hence errors in airhumidity measurement and aerodynamic conductance calculation have considerable impact. Further-more, evaporative cooling promotes a downwards heat flux from the air aloft as well as from the biomassand soil; energy sources that are not always considered. Accounting for these factors leads to E estimatesand modelled interception losses that are considerably higher. On the other hand, canopy water budgetmeasurements can lead to overestimates of E due to spatial sampling errors in throughfall and stem-flow, underestimation of canopy rainfall storage capacity, and incorrect calculation of rainfall duration.There are remaining questions relating to horizontal advection from nearby dry areas, infrequent large-scale turbulence under stable atmospheric conditions, and the possible mechanical removal of splashdroplets by such eddies. These questions have implications for catchment hydrology, rainfall recycling,land surface modelling, and the interpretation of eddy-covariance measurements.
JRC Directorate:Space, Security and Migration

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.