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-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T11:47:33.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Fog interception in a Puerto Rican elfin cloud forest: a wet-canopy water budget approach

from Part III - Hydrometeorology of tropical montane cloud forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2011

By
F. Holwerda ,
L. A. Bruijnzeel ,
A. L. Oord  and
F.N. Scatena
Edited by
L. A. Bruijnzeel ,
F. N. Scatena  and
L. S. Hamilton
F. Holwerda
Affiliation:
VU University, Netherlands
L. A. Bruijnzeel
Affiliation:
VU University, the Netherlands
A. L. Oord
Affiliation:
VU University, Netherlands
F.N. Scatena
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, USA
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

Between 10 July and 25 October 2001, fog interception (CWI) by a Puerto Rican elfin cloud forest at 970 m.a.s.l. was studied. Values of CWI were estimated from the wet-canopy water budget as the sum of throughfall, stemflow, and interception loss, minus rainfall corrected for the effect of slope. CWI was also estimated from throughfall measurements during periods of fog-only. Timing and duration of fog were measured using a wire harp that was protected against rainfall. Estimated rates of CWI correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with collections by the fog gage. Gage to canopy factors were determined from the slopes of these relationships and were considered to integrate differences in fog-catching efficiency of the wire harp and the forest canopy. Applying these factors to the fog gage record yielded an estimated 1.1–1.4 mm day−1 of fog CWI, equivalent to 10–12% of mean daily corrected rainfall (11.3 mm day−1). The wet-canopy water budget method gave the best results when rainfall amounts were small compared to fog, but error bands of estimated CWI became too wide to give meaningful results when rainfall was equal to or larger than the amount of fog. Furthermore, solving the water budget for large rainstorms gave negative values of CWI, possibly because of underestimated stemflow.

Type
Chapter
Information
Tropical Montane Cloud Forests
Science for Conservation and Management
 , pp. 282 - 292
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

Baynton, H. W. (1968). Ecology of an elfin forest in Puerto Rico. II. Microclimate of Pico Del Oeste. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 49: 419–430.Google Scholar
Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J., and Poesen, J. (2005). Numerical simulation of the wind-driven rainfall distribution over small-scale topography in space and time. Journal of Hydrology 315: 252–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S., Lugo, A. E., Silander, S., and Liegel, L. (1983). Research History and Opportunities in the Luquillo Experimental Forest. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.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
Cavelier, J., Solis, D., and Jaramillo, M. A. (1996). Fog interception in montane forests across the Central Cordillera of Panama. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12: 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frumau, K. F. A., Bruijnzeel, L. A., and Tobón, C. (2006). Measurement of precipitation in montane tropical catchments: comparative performance of conventional, spherical and “potential” rain gages. In Forest and Water in a Changing Environment, eds. Liu, S. R., Sun, G., and Sun, P. S., pp. 104–108. Vienna: IUFRO, and Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry.Google Scholar
García-Martinó, A. R., Warner, G. S., Scatena, F. N., and Civco, D. L. (1996). Rainfall, runoff and elevation relationships in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 32: 413–424.Google Scholar
García-Santos, G. (2007). An ecohydrological and soils study in a montane cloud forest in the National Pak of Garajonay, La Gomera (Canary Islands, Spain). Ph.D. thesis VU University, 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
Gash, J. H. C. (1979). An analytical model of rainfall interception by forests. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 105: 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, J. (1985). The collection of fog drip. Water Resources Research 21: 392–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafkenscheid, R. L. L. J., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Jeu, R. A. M., and Bink, N. J. (2002). Water budgets of two upper montane rain forests of contrasting stature in the Blue Mountains, Jamaica. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Colloquium on Hydrology and Water Management in the Humid Tropics, Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 52, ed. Gladwell, J. S., pp. 399–424. Paris: IHP–UNESCO.Google Scholar
Harr, R. D. (1982). Fog-drip in the Bull Run municipal watershed, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 18: 785–789.Google Scholar
Holder, C. D. (2003). Fog precipitation in the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Hydrological Processes 17: 2001–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölscher, D., Köhler, L., Dijk, A. I. J. M., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). The importance of epiphytes to total rainfall interception by a tropical montane rain forest in Costa Rica. Journal of Hydrology 292: 308–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holwerda, F. (2005). Water and energy budgets of rain forests along an elevation gradient under maritime tropical conditions. Ph.D. thesis VU University, 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
Holwerda, F., Burkard, R., Eugster, W. E., et al. (2006a). 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
Holwerda, F., Scatena, F. N., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2006b). Throughfall in a Puerto Rican lower montane rain forest: a comparison of sampling strategies. Journal of Hydrology 327: 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, I. J. (1975). Relationships between rainfall parameters and interception by tropical forest. Journal of Hydrology 24: 215–238.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
Köhler, L., Tobón, C., Fruman, K. F. A., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2007). Biomass and water storage of epiphytes in old-growth and secondary montane rain forest stands in Costa Rica. Plant Ecology 193: 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumaran, S., (2008). Hydrometeorology of Tropical montane rain forests of Gunung Brinchang, Pahang Darul Makmur, Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Levia, D. R. and Frost, E. E. (2003). A review and evaluation of stemflow literature in the hydrological and biogeochemical cycles of forested and agricultural ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology 274: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyton, L., Reynolds, E. R. C., and Thompson, F. B. (1967). Rainfall interception in forest and moorland. In International Symposium on Forest Hydrology, eds. Sopper, W. E. and Lull, H. W., pp. 163–168. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, C. R., and Marques Filho, A. O. (1988). Spatial variability of throughfall and stemflow measurements in Amazonian rain forest. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 42: 63–73.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
Monteith, J. L. (1965). Evaporation and the environment. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 19: 245–269.Google ScholarPubMed
Mulligan, M., and Burke, S. M. (2005). DFID FRP Project R7991, FIESTA: Fog Interception for the Enhancement of Streamflow in Tropical Areas, Final Technical Report of AMBIOTEK/King's College London contributions. Leigh-on-Sea, UK: AMBIOTEK. Also available at www.ambiotek.com/fiesta.Google Scholar
Mulligan, M., Frumau, K. F. A., and Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2006). Falling at the first hurdle: spatial rainfall variability and the problem of closing catchment water budgets in tropical montane environments. In Forest and Water in a Changing Environment, eds. Liu, S. R., Sun, G., and Sun, P. S., pp. 114–117. Vienna: IUFRO, and Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry.Google Scholar
Prada, S., Menezes de Sequeiro, M., Figueira, C., and Silva, M. Oliveira da (2009). Fog precipitation and rainfall interception in the natural forests of Madeira Island (Portugal). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149: 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellekens, J., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Wickel, A. J., Scatena, F. N., and Silver, W. L. (1998). Interception of horizontal precipitation by elfin cloud forest in the Luquillo Mountains, eastern Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Fog and Fog Collection, eds. Schemenauer, R. S. and Bridgman, H. A., pp. 29–32. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.Google Scholar
Schellekens, J., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Scatena, F. N., Bink, N. J., and Holwerda, F. (2000). Evaporation from a tropical rain forest, Luquillo Experimental Forest, eastern Puerto Rico. Water Resources Research 36: 2183–2196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevruk, B. (1982). Methods of Correction for Systematic Error in Point Precipitation Measurement. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.Google Scholar
Sharon, D. (1980). Distribution of hydrologically effective rainfall incident on sloping ground. Journal of Hydrology 46: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadtmüller, T., and Agudelo, N. (1990). Amount and variability of cloud moisture input in a tropical cloud forest. International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication 193: 25–32.Google Scholar
Tóbon-Marin, C., Bouten, W., and Sevink, J. (2000). Gross rainfall and its partitioning into throughfall, stemflow and evaporation of intercepted water in four ecosystems in western Amazonia. Journal of Hydrology 237: 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veneklaas, E. J., Zagt, R. J., Leerdam, A., et al. (1990). Hydrological properties of the epiphyte mass of a montane tropical rain forest, Colombia. Vegetatio 89: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walmsley, J. L., Schemenauer, R. S., and Bridgman, H. A. (1996). A method for estimating the hydrological input from fog in mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 35: 2237–2249.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, P. L. (1972). Cloud moisture interception in the Luquillo Mountains in Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 12: 129–144.Google Scholar
Weaver, P. L. (1995). The colorado and dwarf forests of Puerto Rico's Luquillo Mountains. In Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology, eds. Lugo, A. E. and Lowe, C., pp. 109–141. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickel, A. J. (1997). Rainfall interception modelling for two tropical forest types in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. M.Sc. thesis, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zadroga, F. (1981). The hydrological importance of a montane cloud forest area of Costa Rica. In Tropical Agricultural Hydrology, eds. Lal, R. and Russell, E. W., pp. 59–73. New York: John Wiley.Google 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
×