Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 106, Issue 3–4, pp 511–521 | Cite as

The impact of logging on the surrounding flow in a managed forest

  • Gengsheng Zhang
  • Monique Y. Leclerc
  • Anandakumar Karipot
  • Henrique F. Duarte
  • Erich Mursch-Radlgruber
  • Henry L. Gholz
Original Paper

Abstract

The influence of a freshly logged area in a managed pine forest on the flow field is investigated by comparing sodar wind profile data over the forest canopy with the synoptic wind field extracted from North American Regional Reanalysis, National Centers for Environmental Prediction. As a consequence of the pressure gradient arising from the sharp temperature difference between the clearcut and the surrounding uncut forests, the local wind direction over the forest measured with the sodar departs dramatically from the prevailing synoptic wind direction when the latter is transverse to the clearcut-sodar direction. Sodar measurements also indicate systematic strong updrafts during daytime followed by nighttime downdrafts with wind coming from the logged area. This suggests the presence of horizontal advection carrying daytime warm air (or nighttime cool air) from the clearcut to the forested area. This paper also examines the influence of wind velocity, clearcut fetch, and solar radiation on locally generated circulations and advection. The presence of local circulations arising from contrasting neighboring surface characteristics well outside the footprint is of particular relevance for atmospheric flux sites where robust surface–atmosphere exchange values are sought. This study highlights the high level of circumspection required at the time of identifying locations for flux sites. It also suggests vigilant monitoring of the surrounding landscape during eddy–flux measurements particularly in actively managed landscapes.

Keywords

Wind Speed Wind Direction Pressure Gradient Force Horizontal Pressure Gradient Sodar Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the US Dept. of Energy, Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program for the funding of the present research. We wish to thank sincerely N. Pingintha, D. Durden, and L. Pires for their comments and discussions. We wish to thank M. Binford for providing the remote sensing map as part of this project and to T. Prabha for loaning us the executable program of the Meteo-Science sodar. We also wish to acknowledge the staff from the University of Florida for their help during the field experiments. Thanks also are given to the Donaldson family for providing the study area. This manuscript is based on work done by H. Gholz while serving at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation or the United States Government.

References

  1. Contini D, Mastrantonio G, Viola A, Argentini S (2004) Mean vertical motions in the PBL measured by Doppler sodar: accuracy, ambiguities, and possible improvements. J Atmos Oceanic Technol 21:1532–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Esau IN, Lyons TJ (2002) Effect of sharp vegetation boundary on the convective atmospheric boundary layer. Agric For Meteorol 114:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gholz HL, Clark KL (2002) Energy exchange across a chronosequence of slash pine forests in Florida. Agric For Meteorol 112:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Leclerc MY, Karipot A, Prabha T, Allwine G, Lamb B, Gholz HL (2003) Impact of non-local advection on flux footprints over a tall forest canopy: a tracer flux experiment. Agric For Meteorol 115:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Neff WD, Coulter RL (1986) Acoustic remote sensing. Probing the atmospheric boundary layer, Lenshow DH (ed) Amer Meteor Soc 201—239Google Scholar
  6. Raasch S, Harbusch G (2001) An analysis of secondary circulations and their effects caused by small-scale surface inhomogeneities using large-eddy simulation. Boundary Layer Meteor 101:31–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shen SH, Leclerc MY (1994) Large-eddy simulation of small-scale surface effects on the convective boundary-layer structure. Atmos Ocean 32:717–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shen SH, Leclerc MY (1995) How large must surface inhomogeneities be before they influence the convective boundary layer structure? A case study. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:1209–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sogachev A, Leclerc MY, Karipot A, Zhang G, Vesala T (2005) Effect of clearcuts on footprints and flux measurements above a forest canopy. Agric For Meteorol 133:182–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sogachev A, Leclerc MY, Zhang G, Rannik Ü, Vesala T (2008) CO2 fluxes near a forest edge: a numerical study. Ecol Appl 18:1454–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sun J, Lenschow D, Mahrt L, Crawford TL, Davis KJ, Oncley SP, Macpherson JI, Wang Q, Dobosy RJ, Desjardins RL (1997) Lake-induced atmospheric circulations during BOREAS. J Geophys Res 102(D24):29,155–29,166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sun J, Desjardins R, Mahrt L, MacPherson I (1998) Transport of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ozone by turbulence and local circulations. J Geophys Res 103(D20):25,873–25,855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tanner CB, Thurtell GW (1969) Anemoclinometer measurements of Renolds stress and heat transport in the atmospheric surface layer. Final Report, United States Army Electronics Command, Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory, Fort Huachuca, AZGoogle Scholar
  14. Wilczak JM, Oncley SP, Stage SA (2001) Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Boundary Layer Meteor 99:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhang G, Thomas C, Leclerc MY, Karipot A, Foken T (2007) On the effect of clearcuts on turbulence structure above forest canopy. Theor Appl Climatol 88:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gengsheng Zhang
    • 1
  • Monique Y. Leclerc
    • 1
  • Anandakumar Karipot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henrique F. Duarte
    • 1
  • Erich Mursch-Radlgruber
    • 3
  • Henry L. Gholz
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory for Environmental PhysicsThe University of GeorgiaGriffinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Atmospheric and Space SciencesUniversity of PunePuneIndia
  3. 3.Institute of Meteorology and PhysicsUniversity of Agricultural Sciences ViennaWienAustria
  4. 4.Division of Environmental BiologyNational Science FoundationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations