Advertisement

Forest Floor Interception

  • A. M. J. Gerrits
  • H. H. G. Savenije
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 216)

Abstract

Often it is assumed that throughfall, which is the rainfall that is not intercepted by a canopy, is fully available for infiltration. This is not correct. The forest floor also intercepts rainfall much in the same way as the canopy. The forest floor can temporarily store water on short vegetation, litter, or bare soil. Interception by bare soil seems to have an overlap with soil evaporation, but can be distinguished by the fact that soil evaporation refers to the water that is stored in the root zone (De Groen and Savenije 2006). Whereas interception by bare soil only involves a very thin top layer not accessed by roots, short vegetation is identified as grasses, mosses, small bushes, and creeping vegetation. The litter layer is defined by Hoover and Lunt (1952) as the L & F layers (i.e., leaves, twigs, and small branches).

Keywords

Storage Capacity Forest Floor Bare Soil Rainfall Simulator Soil Evaporation 
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.

References

  1. Baird AJ, Wilby RL (1999) Eco-hydrology – Plants and water in terrestrial and aquatic environments. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Beard JS (1956) Results of the mountain home rainfall interception and infiltration project on black wattle, 1953–1954. J S Afr Forestry 27:72–85Google Scholar
  3. Brechtel HM (1969) Wald und Abfluss-Methoden zur Erforschung der Bedeutung des Waldes fur das Wasserdargebot. Deutsche Gewasserkundliche Mitteilungen 8:24–31Google Scholar
  4. Clark OR (1940) Interception of rainfall by prairie grasses, weeds and certain crop plants. Ecol Monogr 10:243–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerrits AMJ, Savenije HHG, Hoffmann L et al (2007) New technique to measure forest floor interception – an application in a beech forest in Luxembourg. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerrits AMJ, Savenije HHG, Pfister L (2008) Forest floor interception measurements. IHP-VI Tech Doc Hydrol 81:81–86Google Scholar
  7. Gerrits AMJ, Savenije HHG, Pfister L (2009a) Canopy and forest floor interception and transpiration measurements in a mountainous beech forest in Luxembourg. IAHS Redbook 326:18–24Google Scholar
  8. Gerrits AMJ, Savenije HHG, Veling EJM et al (2009b) Analytical derivation of the budyko curve based on rainfall characteristics and a simple evaporation model. Water Resour Res 45:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerrits AMJ, Pfister L, Savenije HHG (2010) Spatial and temporal variability of canopy and forest floor interception in a beech forest. Hydrol Process 24:3011–3025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Groen MM, Savenije HHG (2006) A monthly interception equation based on the statistical characteristics of daily rainfall. Water Resour Res 42. doi 10.1029/2006WR005013Google Scholar
  11. Guevara-Escobar A, Gonzalez-Sosa E, Ramos-Salinas M et al (2007) Experimental analysis of drainage and water storage of litter layers. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11(5):1703–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haynes JL (1940) Ground rainfall under vegetation canopy of crops. J Am Soc Agr 32:176–184Google Scholar
  13. Helvey JD (1964) Rainfall interception by hardwood forest litter in the southern Appalachians. US For Ser Res Pap SE 8:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Helvey JD, Patric JH (1965) Canopy and litter interception of rainfall by hardwoods of Eastern United States. Water Resour Res 1(2):193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoover MD, Lunt HA (1952) A key for the classification of forest humus types. Soil Sci Soc Proc 16:368–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kittredge J (1948) Forest influences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Li XY, Gong JD, Gao QZ et al (2000) Rainfall interception loss by pebble mulch in the semiarid region of China. J Hydrol 228:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller JD, Anderson HA, Ferrier RC et al (1990) Comparison of the hydrological budgets and detailed hydrological responses in two forested catchments. Forestry 63(3):251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pathak PC, Pandey AN, Singh JS (1985) Apportionment of rainfall in central Himalayan forests (India). J Hydrol 76:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pitman JI (1989) Rainfall interception by bracken litter – relationship between biomass, storage and drainage rate. J Hydrol 111:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Putuhena W, Cordery I (1996) Estimation of interception capacity of the forest floor. J Hydrol 180:283–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sato Y, Kumagai T, Kume A et al (2004) Experimental analysis of moisture dynamics of litter layers - the effect of rainfall conditions and leaf shapes. Hydrol Process 18:3007–3018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schaap MG, Bouten W (1997) Forest floor evaporation in a dense douglas fir stand. J Hydrol 193:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tamai K, Hattori S (1993) Apportionment of evapotranspiration of a deciduous broadleaved forest in the Yamashiro catchment. IAHS Redbook 212:61–65Google Scholar
  25. Thamm F, Widmoser P (1995) Zur hydrologischen Bedeutung der organischen Auflage im Wald: Untersuchungsmethoden und erste Ergebnisse. Z fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde 158:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thurow TL, Blackburn WH, Warren SD et al (1987) Rainfall interception by midgrass, shortgrass, and live oak mottes. J Range Manage 40(5):455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walsh RPD, Voigt PJ (1977) Vegetation litter: an underestimated variable in hydrology and geomorphology. J Biogr 4:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesDelft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations