Comparison of Distribution of Precipitation in Quercus castanifolia, Ulmus glabra and Parotica percica Forest Types

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Watershed Management Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Iran

2 PhD Students of Forestry and Natural Resources Faculty of Tarbiat Modares University, Iran

3 PhD Students in Watershed Science and Engineering Faculty of Natural Resources Tarbiat Modares University, Iran

Abstract

In forest ecosystems, vegetation characteristics along with climatic parameters have a great influence on the distribution of precipitation components and water cycle. The present study was therefore conducted to measure the amounts of interception loss, throughfall and stemflow in Quercus castanifolia, Ulmus glabra and Parotica Percica at the campus of Faculty of Natural Resources of Tarbiat Modarres University, Noor, as representative of Hyrcanian forests of the country. Precipitation measurements were carried out by 23 collector containers over the course of a year from 06/10/2018 to 06/10/2019 with 34 storm events. The results showed that the rates of steamflow in Quercus, Parotica and Ulmus species were 0.97, 0.56 and 0.34%, respectively. There was a strong, positive and linear relationship between steamflow and precipitation in the Parotica type (R2 = 0.70). The interception losses were also 19, 17 and 8% in the Quercus, Ulmus and Parotica species, respectively. Regressions were also satisfactorily established between total precipitation and mean interception loss with coefficient of determination of 0.61, 0.62 and 0.46 for Quercus, Ulmus and Parotica stands, respectively. The results of ANOVA verified no significant difference between interception loss (P = 0.790) and throghfall values (P = 0.894) among the three study species. However, there was significant difference (p=0.015) between the moisture contents of litters in Quercus sp. compared to other two types of Ulmus sp. and Parotica sp. There was also a significant difference between the values of Quercus sp and Ulmus sp (P = 0.009).

Keywords

References

[1]. Gomez J.A, Giraldez J.V, Fereres E. Rainfall Interception by Olive trees in relation to leaf area. Journal of Agriculture Water Management. 2001; 49(1):65-76.
[2]. Ahmadi M.T, Attarod P, Mohadjer M.R.M, Rahmani R, Fathi J. Partitioning rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception loss in an oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forest during the growing season. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forest. 2009; 33(6):557-568.
[3]. Marin C.T, Bouten W, Sevink J. Gross rainfall and its partitioning into throughfall, stemflow and evaporation of intercepted water in four forest ecosystems in western Amazonia. Journal of Hydrology. 2000; 237(1–2):40–57.
[4]. Deguchi A, Hattori S, Park H. The influence of seasonal change of canopy structure in interception loss: Application of the revised Gash model. Journal of Hydrology. 2006; 319(1):80-102.
 
[5]. Crockford R.H, Richardson D.P. Partitioning of rainfall in to throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of Forest type, ground cover and climate, Hydrological Processes. 2000; 14(16-17):2903-2920.

[6]. Hosseini Ghaleh Bahmani S, Attarod P, Bayramzadeh V, Ahmadi M, Radmehr A. Throughfall, stemflow, and rainfall interception in a natural pure forest of chestnut-leaved Oak (Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Mey.) in the Caspian Forest of Iran. Annals of Forest Research. 2012; 55(2): 197-206.

[7]. Shachnovich Y, Berniler P, Bar P. Rainfall interception and spatial distribution of troughfall in a pine forest planted in an arid zone. Journal of Hydrology. 2008; 349(1-2):168– 177.
[8]. Levia D.F, Germer S. A review of stemflow generation dynamics and stemflow-environment interactions in forests and shrublands. Reviews of Geophysics. 2015; 53(3): 673–714.
[9]. Carlyle-Moses D.E, Iida S, Germer S, Llorens P, Michalzik B, Nanko K, et al. Expressing stemflow commensurate with its cohydrological importance. Advances in Water Resources. 2018; 121:472–479.
[10]. Hanchi A, Rapp M. Stemflow determination in forest stants, Journal of Forest Ecology and Management. 1997; 97(3):231-235.
[11]. Delphis F, Levia J. Differential winter stemflow generation under contrasting storm conditions in a southern New England broad-leaved deciduous forest. Hydrological Processes. 2004; 18(6):1105–1112.
[12]. Levia D.F, Herwitz S.R. Interspecific variation of bark water storage capacity of three deciduous tree species in relation to stemflow yield and solute flux to forest soils. Journal of Catena. 2005; 64(1):117–137.
[13]. Valova M and Bieleszova S. Interspecific variations of barks water storage capacity of chosen types of trees and the dependence on occurrence of epiphytic mosses, GeoScience Engineering. 2008; 4: 45–51.
[14]. Zhang G, Zeng G.M, Huang G.H, Jiang Y.M, Yao J.M, Du C.Y, et al. Deposition pattern of precipitation and throughfall in a subtropical evergreen forest in south-central China. Journal of Forest Research. 2006; 11(6)389–396.
[15]. Herbst M, Roberts J.M, Rosier P.T, Gowing D.J. Measuring and modelling the rainfall interception loss by hedgerows in southern England. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2006; 141(2-4): 244-256.
[16]. Godarzi S, Mataji A, Veisanloo F. Rainfall components distribution in needle-leaved and broadleaved plantations in a semiarid climate zone (Case study: Shahid-Beheshti Forest Park in Broujerd). Iranian Journal of Forest. 2015; 6(3):339-350. [Persian]
[17]. Ghorbani S, Rahmani R. Estimating of interception loss, stemflow and throughfall in a natural stand of oriental Beech (Shastkalateh forest). Iranian Journal of Forest. 2006; 16(4):638-648. [Persian]
[18]. Llorens, P, Domingo F. Rainfall partitioning by vegetation under Mediterranean conditions. A review of studies in Europe. Journal of Hydrology. 2007; 335(1–2): 37–54.
[19]. Anzhi W, Jinzhong L, Jianmei L, Tiefan P, Changjie J. A semi-theoretical model of canopy rainfall interception for Pinus Koraiensis Nakai. Ecological Modelling. 2005; 184(2): 355–361.
[20]. Aston A.R. Rainfall interception by eight small trees. Journal of Hydrology. 1997; 42(3-4): 383-396.
[21]. Pypker T.G, Bond B.J, Link T.E, Marks D, Unsworth M.H. The importance of canopy structure in controlling the interception loss of rainfall: Examples from a young and an old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2005; 130(1–2): 113–129.
[22]. Domingo F, Sanchez G, Moro M.J, Brenner A.J, Puigdefabregas J. Measurement and modelling of rainfall interception by three semiarid canopies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 1998; 91(3-4): 275-292.
[23]. Loshali D.C, Singh R.P. Partitioning of rainfall by three Central Himalayan forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 1992; 53(1-4): 99–105.
[24]. Buttle J.M, Farnsworth A.G. Measurement and modeling of canopy water partitioning in a reforested landscape: The Ganaraska Forest, southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Hydrology. 2012; 466-467:103-114.
[25]. Carlyle-Moses D.E. Throughfall, stemflow, and canopy interception loss fluxes in a semi-arid Sierra Madre Oriental mattoral community. Journal of Arid Environments. 2004; 58(2):181-202.
[26]. Sabeti H. Forests, Trees and Shrubs of Iran. 3nd ed. Iran University of Science and Technology: Tehran; 1999.
[27]. Rahmani R, Sadoddin A, Ghorbani S. Measuring and modelling precipitation components in an Oriental beech stand of the Hyrcanian region,Iran. Journal of Hydrology. 2011; 404(3): 294–303.
[28]. Toba T, Ohta T. An observational study of the factors that influence interception loss in boreal and temperate forests. Journal of Hydrology. 2005; 313(3):208-220
[29]. Fanaei HR, Galavi M, Kafi M, Shiranirad AH. Interaction of Water Deficit Stress and Potassium Application on Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium Concentration and Oil of Two Species of Canola (Brassica napus) and Mustard (Brassica juncea), Water and Soil Science. 2013; 23(3):261-275. [Persian]
[30]. Levia D.F, Vanstan J.T, Mage S.M, Kelley-Hauske P.W. Temporal variability of stemflow volum in a beechyellow poplar forest in relation to tree species and size. Journal of Hydrology. 2010; 380(1/2):112-120.
[31]. Sraj M, Brilly M, Mikos M. Rainfall interception by two deciduous Mediterranean forests of contrasting stature in Slovenia. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2008; 148(1):121-134.
[32]. Han H, Dong L, Kang F, Cheng X, Zhao J, Song X. Rainfall Partitioning in Chinese Pine (Pinus tabuliformis Carr.) Stands at Three Different Ages, Journal of Forests. 2020; 11(2):243.
[33]. Butle J.M, Snelgrove J.R, Tetzlaff D. Importance of rainfall partitioning in a northern mixed forest canopy for soil water isotopic signatures in ecohydrological studies, Journal of Hydrology Processes. 2019; 34(2):244-302.
[34]. Iida Sh, Tanaka T, Sugita M. Change of interception process due to the succession from Japanese red pine to evergreen oak. Journal of Hydrology. 2005; 315(1):154-166.
[35]. Rowe L.K. Rainfall interception by an evergreen beech forest, Nelson, Newzealand. Journal of Hydrology. 1983; 66(1-4):143-158.
[36]. Ahmadi M.T, Attarod P, Mohadjer M.R.M, Rahmani R, Fathi J. Canopy interception loss in a pure oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) stand during the summer season. Iranian Journal of Forest. 2009; 2(1):175-185. [Persian]
[37]. Sadeghi S.M.M, Attarod P, Abbasian P, Vabston J, Hojjati M. Throughfall nutrients in a degraded indigenous Fagus orientalis forest and a Picea abies plantation in the North of Iran. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria. 2015; 24(3):0-10.
[38]. Hormann G, Branding A, Clemen T, Herbst M, Hinrichs A, Thamm F. Calculation and simulation of wind controlled canopy interception of a beech forest in northern Germany. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 1996; 79(3): 131–148.
[39]. Neal C, Robson C.L, Bhardwaj C.L, Conway T, Jeffery H.A, Neal M, et al.Relationships between precipitation, stemflow and throughfall for a lowland beech plantation, BlackWood, Hampshire, southern England: Findings on interception at a forest edge and the effects of storm damage. Journal of Hydrology. 1993; 146: 221–233
[40]. Vertessy R.A, Watson F.G.R, Sullivan S.K. Factors determining relations between stand age and catchment water balance in mountain ash forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 2001; 143:13- 26.
[41]. Loshali D.C, Singh R.P. Partitioning of rainfall by three Central Himalayan forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 1992; 53(1-4): 99–105.
[42]. Sadeghi S.M.M, Attarod P, Van Stan J.T, Pypker T.G, Dunkerley D. Is canopy interception increased in semiarid tree plantations? Evidence from a field investigation in Tehran, Iran, Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2014; 38(6): 792-806.
[43]. Ford C.R, Hubbard R.M, Vose J.M. Quantifying structural and physiological controls on variation in canopy transpiration among planted pine and hardwood species in the southern Appalachians, Ecohydrology. 2011; 4(2):183–195.
[44]. Staelens J, De Schrijver A, Verheyen K. Seasonal variation in throughfall and stemflow chemistry beneath a European beech (Fagus sylvatica) tree in relation to canopy phenology. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2007; 37(8):1359–1372.
[45]. Owens M.K, Lyons K.R, Alegandro C.L. Rainfall partitioning with in semiarid juniper communities: effects of event size and canopy cover, Hydrological Processes. 2006; 20:3179-3189.
[46]. Allison G.B, Hughes M.W. Comparison of recharge to groundwater under pasture and forest using environmental tritium, Journal of Hydrology. 1972; 17(1-2):81-95.
[47]. Sadeghi S.M.M, Nazari M, Van Stan J.T, Chaichi M.R. Rainfall interception and redistribution by maize farmland in Centeral Iran, Journal of Hydrology. 2020; 27:100656.
Iranian journal of Ecohydrology
Volume 7, Issue 2
July 2020
Pages 383-396

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 January 2020
  • Revise Date: 25 April 2020
  • Accept Date: 25 April 2020
  • First Publish Date: 21 June 2020
  • Publish Date: 21 June 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics