4.7 Article

Energy consumption and evapotranspiration at several boreal and temperate forests in the Far East

Journal

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
Volume 148, Issue 12, Pages 1978-1989

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.09.008

Keywords

Boreal forest; Cool-temperate forest; Energy exchange; Evapotranspiration; Far East region; Warm-temperate forest

Funding

  1. Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST) foundation of the Japan Science and Technology Agency
  2. Programme International Nature Management Central and Eastern Europe (PINMATRA)
  3. Research Council for Earth and Life Sciences (ALW)
  4. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [854.00.018]
  5. European Commission [EVK2-2001-00143]
  6. Sasakawa Scientific Research Grant
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  8. JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We measured sensible and latent heat fluxes (H and lambda E) in five forests located in boreal, cool-temperate, and warm-temperate zones of the Far East concurrently over several years to clarify their energy-consumption characteristics and the variation in and factors controlling evapotranspiration. The consumption of energy for evapotranspiration was larger at the southern sites than at the northern sites, and evapotranspiration in summer (July-August) was larger (average 2.9 mm day(-1)) for temperate forests than for boreal forests (average 1.7 mm day(-1)). Differences in energy-consumption characteristics between the forest types (e.g., deciduous vs. coniferous) were not as distinct as those by location. This inter-locational difference resulted from differing evapotranspiration restrictions caused by land-surface characteristics, rather than differing atmospheric evaporation demand. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available