4.7 Article

Sensitivity of a data-driven soil water balance model to estimate summer evapotranspiration along a forest chronosequence

期刊

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 15, 期 11, 页码 3461-3473

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-15-3461-2011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Graduate School of the Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Sciences of the University of Freiburg
  2. Landesgraduiertenforderung Baden-Wurttemberg
  3. German Research Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydrology of ecosystem succession gives rise to new challenges for the analysis and modelling of water balance components. Recent large-scale alterations of forest cover across the globe suggest that a significant portion of new biophysical environments will influence the long-term dynamics and limits of water fluxes compared to pre-succession conditions. This study assesses the estimation of summer evapotranspiration along three FLUXNET sites at Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada using a data-driven soil water balance model validated by Eddy Covariance measurements. It explores the sensitivity of the model to different forest succession states, a wide range of computational time steps, rooting depths, and canopy interception capacity values. Uncertainty in the measured EC fluxes resulting in an energy imbalance was consistent with previous studies and does not affect the validation of the model. The agreement between observations and model estimates proves that the usefulness of the method to predict summer AET over mid-and long-term periods is independent of stand age. However, an optimal combination of the parameters rooting depth, time step and interception capacity threshold is needed to avoid an underestimation of AET as seen in past studies. The study suggests that summer AET could be estimated and monitored in many more places than those equipped with Eddy Covariance or sap-flow measurements to advance the understanding of water balance changes in different successional ecosystems.

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