4.7 Article

A method for estimating transpiration of irrigated urban trees in California

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 48-61

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.021

关键词

Urban forest; Irrigated trees; Transpiration; Evapotranspiration; Los Angeles; Landscape coefficients

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [IOS 1147057, EAR 1204442]
  2. Division Of Earth Sciences
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [1204442] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transpiration of urban forests in southern California is highly uncertain and challenging to quantify because of variability of tree characteristics and stomatal responses among species and locations. However, as California undergoes the most severe drought on record, it is imperative to develop approaches to estimating transpiration of irrigated urban trees (E-Trees). We examined the landscape coefficient method recommended by the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) and widely used to estimate irrigation needs of urban landscapes. The CIMIS method uses reference evapotranspiration (ET0) calculated from the Penman-Monteith equation and a set of species-specific factors to adjust ET0 for particular landscapes. We found a mismatch between CIMIS predictions and actual patterns of urban tree transpiration that we attributed to underrepresentation of tree physiological mechanisms in ET0. As an alternative, we propose an empirical model of E-Trees based on in situ measurements on 108 urban trees (14 species) in the Los Angeles region: E-Trees E-ref (0.23InD + 0.002I(0) + 0.55). Here D is the vapor pressure deficit of the air, I-0 is incoming solar radiation and E-ref is species-specific parameter representing E-Trees at D = 1 kPa that may be estimated using mean sapwood area of a tree stand. This model may be used to estimate E-Trees for practical applications and to improve representation of irrigated urban forests in hydrologic models. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据