4.6 Article

The stemflow of trees in a Bornean lowland tropical forest

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Volume 18, Issue 13, Pages 2455-2474

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1474

Keywords

rainfall partitioning; interception loss; understory trees; mean areal sternflow; Borneo; Sarawak

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stemflow volume generation in lowland tropical forests was measured over a 1-year period in the Malaysian state of Sarawak. The stemflow volume generated by 66 free-standing trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) over 1 cm and a tree height over 1 m were measured daily in a representative 10 m x 10 m plot of the forest. Throughfall in the plot was also measured using 20 gauges in a fixed position. Of the 2292 mm of total rainfall observed during the year-long period, stemflow accounted for 3.5%, throughfall for 82% and there was an interception loss of 14.5%. Understory trees (DBH < 10 cm) played an important role in stemflow generation, producing 77% of the overall sternflow volume and 90% during storms with less than 20 turn of rainfall. Also, owing to their efficiency at funneling rainfall or throughfall water received by their crowns, some understory trees noticeably reduced the catches of the throughfall gauges situated under the reach of their crown areas. During storms producing greater than 20 mm of rainfall, 80% of the total sternflow occurred; trees with a large DBH or height and for which the ratio between crown's diameter and depth is less than 1, tended to generate more sternflow volume in these storms. Mean areal sternflow as a fraction of rainfall in this lowland tropical forest was 3(.)4%, but may range from 1 - 10% depending upon the proportion of trees that are high or poor sternflow yielders. Trees with DBH greater than 10 cm were likely to contribute less than 1% of the 3.4% mean areal sternflow in the forest. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available