Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T11:59:12.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

30 - Fog gage performance under conditions of fog and wind-driven rain

from Part III - Hydrometeorology of tropical montane cloud forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2011

By
K. F. A. Frumau ,
R. Burkard ,
S. Schmid ,
L.A. Bruijnzeel ,
C. Tobón  and
J. C. Calvo-Alvarado
Edited by
L. A. Bruijnzeel ,
F. N. Scatena  and
L. S. Hamilton
K. F. A. Frumau
Affiliation:
VU University, Netherlands
R. Burkard
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
S. Schmid
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
L.A. Bruijnzeel
Affiliation:
VU University, Netherlands
C. Tobón
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia
J. C. Calvo-Alvarado
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Costa Rica
L. A. Bruijnzeel
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
F. N. Scatena
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
L. S. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

ABSTRACT

Fog and wind-driven rain (WDR) are difficult to measure separately and reported measurements of “fog” often represent a combination of fog and WDR. In this chapter the term “horizontal precipitation” (HP) is used instead. Understanding of “typical” amounts of HP intercepted by different types of cloud forest is hampered by a lack of comparative information on local fog climatology. Usually some kind of “fog gage” is used to characterize fog occurrence and amounts. Collection efficiencies of three passive fog gages, viz. a wire harp, a modified cylindrical gage (Juvik-type), and a tunnel gage (Daube-type), were derived by comparing the volumes of water collected by the respective gages with cloud water fluxes derived from fog liquid water content (LWC) as measured by a cloud particle spectrometer during conditions of fog at a windward cloud forest site in northern Costa Rica. The collection efficiency of the three gages proved linearly related to the horizontal cloud water flux as measured by the gages themselves. Therefore, no additional information on wind speed, droplet size, and fog LWC was needed. During conditions of HP, relative collection efficiencies were derived by comparing the volumes collected by the respective gages. The modified Juvik gage had an efficiency close to 100%, independently of wind speed and direction. The efficiency of the wire harp depended critically on wind speed, whereas the tunnel gage collected additional precipitation at small precipitation angles and low wind speeds. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Tropical Montane Cloud Forests
Science for Conservation and Management
 , pp. 293 - 301
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ataroff, M. (1998). Importance of cloud water in Venezuelan Andean cloud forest water dynamics. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Fog and Fog Collection, eds. Schemenauer, R. S. and Bridgman, H. A., pp. 25–28. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.Google Scholar
Baynton, H. W. (1969). The ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico. III. Hilltop and forest influences on the microclimate of Pico del Oeste. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 50: 80–92.Google Scholar
Beiderwieden, E., Wolff, V., Hsia, Y. J., and Klemm, O. (2008). It goes both ways: measurements of simultaneous evapotranspiration and fog droplet deposition at a montane cloud forest. Hydrological Processes 22: 4181–4189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beswick, K. M., Hargreaves, K. J., Gallagher, M. W., Choularton, T. W., and Fowler, D. (1991). Size-resolved measurements of cloud droplet deposition velocity to a forest canopy using an eddy-correlation technique. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 117: 623–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2005). Tropical montane cloud forests: a unique hydrological case. In Forests, Water and People in the Humid Tropics, eds. Bonell, M. and Bruijnzeel, L. A., pp. 462–483. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, L. A., and Proctor, J. (1995). Hydrology and biogeochemistry of tropical montane cloud forests: what do we really know? In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, eds. Hamilton, L. S., Juvik, J. O., and Scatena, F. N., pp. 38–78. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, L. A., Eugster, W., and Burkard, R. (2005). Fog as an input to the hydrological cycle. In Encyclopaedia of Hydrological Sciences, eds. Anderson, M. G. and McDonnell, J. J., pp. 559–582. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Burkard, R., Eugster, W., Wrzesinsky, T., and Klemm, O. (2002). Vertical divergence of fogwater fluxes above a spruce forest. Atmospheric Research 64: 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavelier, J., Solis, D., and Jaramillo, M. A. (1996). Fog interception in montane forest across the Central Cordillera of Panama. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12: 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K. L., Nadkarni, N. M., Schaeffer, D., and Gholz, H. L. (1998). Atmospheric deposition and net retention of ions by the canopy in a tropical montane forest, Monteverde, Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K. L., Lawton, R. O., and Butler, P. (2000). The physical environment. In Monteverde: Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Cloud Forest, eds. Nadkarni, N. M. and Wheelwright, N. T., pp. 15–34. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daube, B., Kimball, K. D., Lamar, P. A., and Weathers, K. C. (1987). Two new ground-level cloud water sampler designs which reduce rain contamination. Atmospheric Environment 21: 893–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demoz, B. B., Collett, J. L., and Daube, B. C. (1996). On the Caltech Active Strand Cloudwater Collectors. Atmospheric Research 41: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eugster, W. R.Burkard, Holwerda, F., Scatena, F. N., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2006). Characteristics of fog and fog-water fluxes in a Puerto Rican elfin cloud forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 139: 288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlander, S. K., (1977). Smoke, Dust, and Haze: Fundamentals of Aerosol Behavior. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Frumau, K. F. A., Bruijnzeel, L. A., and Tobón, C. (2006). Hydrological Measurement Protocol for Montane Cloud Forests, Annex 2, Final Technical Report on DFID-FRP Project No. R7991. Amsterdam: VU University, and Aylesford, UK: Forestry Research Program of the UK Department for International Development.Google Scholar
García-Santos, G. (2007). An ecohydrological and soils study in a subtropical montane cloud forest in the National Park of Garajonay, La Gomera, (Canary Islands, Spain). Ph.D. thesis, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Also available at www.falw.vu.nl/nl/onderzoek/earth-sciences/geo-environmental-science-and-hydrology/hydrology-dissertations/index.asp.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. (1985). The collection of fog drip. Water Resources Research 21: 392–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holder, C. D. (2003). Fog precipitation in the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Hydrological Processes 17: 2001–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holwerda, F., Burkard, R., Eugster, W., et al. (2006). Estimating fog deposition at a Puerto Rican elfin cloud forest site: comparison of the water-budget and eddy covariance methods. Hydrological Processes 20: 2669–2692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joslin, J. D., Mueller, S. F., and Wolfe, M. H. (1990). Tests of models of cloudwater deposition to forest canopies using artificial and living collectors. Atmospheric Environment 24: 3007–3019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juvik, J. O., and Ekern, P. C. (1978). A Climatology of Mountain Fog on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i Island, Technical Report No. 118. Honolulu, HI: Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawai`i.Google Scholar
Juvik, J. O., and Nullet, D. (1995). Comments on “a proposed standard fog collector for use in high elevation regions.”Journal of Applied Meteorology 34: 2108–2110.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, A. S., and Vong, R. J. (1999). Near-surface fluxes of cloud water evolve vertically. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 125: 2663–2684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langmuir, I., and Blodgett, K. B. (1946). A Mathematical Investigation of Water Droplet Trajectories, Army Air Forces Technical Report No. 5418. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Air Forces Headquarters, Air Technical Service Command.Google Scholar
Lovett, G. M. (1984). Rates and mechanisms of cloud water deposition to a subalpine balsam fir forest. Atmospheric Environment 18: 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzol, M. V. (2002). Fog water collection in a Rural Park in the Canary Islands (Spain). Atmospheric Research 64: 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McJannet, D., Wallace, J., and Reddell, P. (2007). Precipitation interception in Australian tropical rainforests. II. Altitudinal gradients of cloud interception, stemflow, throughfall and interception. Hydrological Processes 21: 1703–1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruppacher, H. R., and Klett, J. D.. (1978). Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, A., Regalado, C. M., and Aschan, G. (2008). Fog water collection in a subtropical elfin laurel forest of the Garajonay National Park (Canary Islands): a combined approach using artificial fog catchers and a physically based impaction model. Journal of Hydrometeorology 9: 920–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schemenauer, R. S., and Cereceda, P. (1994). A proposed standard fog collector for use in high-elevation regions. Journal of Applied Meteorology 33: 1313–1322.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schemenauer, R. S., and Joe, P. I. (1989). The collection efficiency of a large fog collector. Atmospheric Research 24: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slinn, W. G. N. (1982). Predictions for particle deposition to vegetative canopies. Atmospheric Environment 16: 1785–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, A. T., Wyers, G. P., Romer, F. G., et al. (1997). Fog deposition on a coniferous forest in the Netherlands. Atmospheric Environment 31: 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vong, R. J., and Kowalski, A. S. (1995). Eddy-correlation measurements of size-dependent cloud droplet turbulent fluxes to complex terrain. Tellus Series B 47: 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walmsley, J. L., Schemenauer, R. S., and Bridgman, H. A. (1996). A method for estimating the hydrologic input from fog in mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 35: 2237–2249.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×