4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Measured differences in snow accumulation and melt among clearcut, juvenile, and mature forests in southern British Columbia

期刊

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 51-62

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5757

关键词

snow accumulation; snowmelt; lysimeters; thinning; clearcutting; lodgepole pine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantification of the relationships between snow and forest cover, including its removal through logging, insects or disease and its regrowth, is a prerequisite to assessing the effects of forestry practices on streamflow from montane and boreal forest watersheds. Over a 3 year period, a juvenile and a juvenile-thinned lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) stand, a mature mixed Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt) and lodgepole pine stand, and a clearcut were intensively surveyed to quantify differences in snow water equivalent (SWE). Daily snowmelt, weather conditions, and the energy balance were measured during the first year of this study. The 1 April SWE was 32% and 14% less under the mature and juvenile forests respectively than in the clearcut. No significant differences in peak SWE were measured between the juvenile and juvenile-thinned stands. Continuous snowmelt lysimeter measurements showed that snowmelt began earlier, accumulated more rapidly, and disappeared 2 to 4 days earlier in the juvenile-thinned stand than in either the unthinned juvenile stand or the clearcut. When the snowpack had disappeared from the clearcut and juvenile stands, 30% of the SWE on I April remained in the mature forest. The results not only show that snow accumulation and melt differ significantly between clearcut, juvenile, and mature stands, but also that snowmelt patterns vary among juvenile stands with distinct structural differences. This is due to the difference in the energy balances, dominated by radiant heat fluxes, of the four sites. Copyright (C) 2005 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

4.6
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