4.7 Article

Modelling rainfall interception by vegetation of variable density using an adapted analytical model. Part 2. Model validation for a tropical upland mixed cropping system

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 247, Issue 3-4, Pages 239-262

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00393-6

Keywords

interception; gash model; ecology; vegetation; canopy cover; maize

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To improve the description of rainfall partitioning by a vegetation canopy that changes in time a number of adaptations to the revised analytical model for rainfall interception by sparse canopies [J. Hydrol., 170 (1995) 79] was proposed in the first of two papers. The current paper presents an application of this adapted analytical model to simulate throughfall. stemflow and interception as measured in a mixed agricultural cropping system involving cassava, maize and nice during two seasons of growth and serial harvesting in upland West Java, Indonesia. Measured interception losses were 18 and 8% during the two measuring periods, while stemflow fractions were estimated at 2 and 4%, respectively. The main reasons for these discrepancies were differences in vegetation density and composition, as well as differences in the exposure of the two sites used in the two respective years. Functions describing the development of the leaf area index of each of the component crops in time were developed. Leaf area index (ranging between 0.7 and 3.8) was related to canopy cover fraction (0.41-0.94). Using average values and time series of the respective parameters, interception losses were modelled using both the revised analytical model and the presently adapted version. The results indicate that the proposed model adaptations substantially improve the performance of the analytical model and provide a more solid base for parameterisation of the analytical model in vegetation of variable density. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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