4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

A simplified approach to implement forest eco-hydrological properties in regional hydrological modelling

期刊

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING
卷 187, 期 1, 页码 40-59

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.01.026

关键词

eco-hydrology; scots pine; Pinus sylvestris; common oak; Quercus robur

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The topic of this paper is a simplified model for simulating the hydrological properties of forest stands based on a robust computation of the temporal LAI (leaf area index) dynamics. The approach allows the simulation of all hydrologically relevant processes. It includes interception of precipitation and transpiration of forest stands with and without groundwater in the rooting zone. The model also considers phenology, mortality and simple management practice. It was implemented as a module in the eco-hydrological model SWIM (Soil and Water Integrated Model), The approach was tested on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and common oak (Quercus robur and Q. petraea). The results demonstrate a good simulation of annual biomass increase and LAI and satisfactory simulation of litter production (annual mean value). A comparison of the date of May sprout for Scots pine and leaf unfolding for Oak (1980-1990) with observed data of the DWD (German Weather Service) shows a good reproduction of the temporal dynamic. The daily simulation of transpiration shows an excellent correlation of r = 0.81 for the year 1998 but only r = 0.65 for 1999. The interception losses were also simulated and compared with weekly observed data showing satisfactory results in the vegetation periods and annual sums, but worse agreement in autumn and spring time. A regional assessment study was done in the federal state of Brandenburg (Germany) to test the applicability and multi-criteria evaluation capabilities of the approach on the landscape and catchments scale using forest data, daily river discharge and regional water balance. (c) 2005 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

4.5
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