A.I.J.M. van Dijk (2002) Water and Sediment Dynamics in Bench-terraced Agricultural Steeplands in West Java, Indonesia.

PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Chapter 4 Adaptations to the analytical model of rainfall interception for use in a vegetation of variable density

Abstract: The revised analytical model to predict rainfall interception by sparse canopies (Gash et al., 1995) is further modified to improve the description of evaporation from wet vegetation whose canopy characteristics vary in time (e.g. agricultural crops, deciduous forest, fast-growing plantation forest, effects of storms, pests or logging, etc.). The main adjustments proposed are based on the following assumptions: (1) the canopy capacity is linearly related to leaf area index; (2) the evaporation rate from a saturated canopy can be expressed as an exponential function of leaf area index; and (3) evaporation from stems during the storms may be treated in a similar manner as that from the canopy. The comparative performance of the revised and the presently proposed version of the analytical model in predicting interception by a mixed cropping system in West Java, Indonesia is discussed in Chapter 5.

Published as: Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Bruijnzeel, L.A., 2001. Modelling rainfall interception by vegetation of variable density using an adapted analytical model. 1. Model description. Journal of Hydrology 247: 230-238.

4.1. Introduction The capacity of vegetated surfaces to intercept and store water is of great practical importance. To hydrologists, the most important aspect of interception relates to its effect on site and catchment water balances. It is well-documented that the rate of evaporation from a wet canopy is higher than that under dry canopy conditions (Rutter, 1967; Stewart, 1977; Calder, 1979). As such, rainfall interception and its subsequent evaporation constitutes a net loss to the system which may assume considerable values under certain conditions (Shuttleworth and Calder, 1979; Schellekens et al., 2000). Conversely, in coastal and montane fog belts interception of wind-driven fog by forest vegetation or hedgerows may add substantial amounts of moisture to the system (Bruijnzeel, 2000). Thus, the distinct changes in streamflow observed after forest removal or introduction often reflect the fact that interception losses from tall forests exceed those associated with lower vegetation, such as grassland or agricultural crops

37

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION (Bosch and Hewlett,1982; Bruijnzeel, 1990; Calder, 1990; Stednick, 1996). On a related note, the presence or absence of vegetation not only affects the amount of rainfall reaching the soil surface, but also its kinetic energy, and thus its capacity to detach and transport soil material (Morgan, 1985; Vis, 1986; Brandt, 1988). Traditionally, the results of interception studies have been expressed mostly in relation to gross rainfall, either as a percentage or through various types of regression equations (Zinke, 1967; Jackson, 1975). However, comparisons between different studies, often even for the same vegetation type, were rendered difficult because of the more or less unique character of each forest stand. Rutter et al. (1971, 1975) were the first to move away from this site-specific empirical regression approach. The Rutter model calculates a running water balance for the wetted canopy (and trunks). It requires hourly rainfall and above-canopy meteorological data, as well as four parameters to describe the structure of the vegetation. In addition, it uses an empirical expression to describe drainage from the canopy. The main practical drawback of the Rutter model lies in its high data requirement. A simpler storm-based derivation, the so-called analytical model of rainfall interception, was proposed by Gash (1979). The Gash model elegantly retains some of the simplicity of the empirical approach, while also preserving much of the fundamental physical reasoning explicit in the Rutter model. The analytical model has been used with considerable success to predict interception in a wide range of environments, including temperate coniferous and broadleaf forests (Gash et al., 1980; Pearce et al., 1980) and tropical rainforests (Lloyd et al., 1988; Hutjes et al., 1990). However, attempts to use the analytical model in more open forests tended to overestimate interception loss (Teklehaimanot et al., 1991; Gash et al., 1995). This led to the formulation of a sparse canopy variant in which evaporation from the wet canopy was considered linearly dependent on canopy cover fraction (Gash et al., 1995). Subsequent successful applications of the revised model include those of Valente et al. (1997) in open stands of Pinus pinaster and Eucalyptus globulus in Portugal, a rainforest in Brunei (Dykes, 1997) and a northern hardwood forest in Canada (Carlyle-Moses and Price, 1999). Jackson (2000) also used the sparse canopy model to predict interception in an agroforestry system that involved rows of trees mixed with agricultural crops in Kenya, with fair success. In the latter study, tree crown size and canopy density varied over time as a result of tree growth and repeated pruning, the effects of which were simulated by distinguishing separate phases during which canopy conditions were assumed to be constant. This modification affected model performance (Jackson, 2000) Broadly speaking, the effects of abrupt changes in vegetation characteristics on interception loss have been largely addressed until now by simply assigning net rainfall data to the periods before or after the change (e.g. Waterloo, 1994; Carlyle-Moses and Price, 1999; Jackson, 2000). However, there are many situations in which vegetation density changes more gradually and yet relatively rapidly (e.g. agricultural crops, fast-growing tree plantations; Van Dijk, 1996; Beadle, 1997). Having to distinguish a series of consecutive periods, each with their own constant canopy characteristics, easily leads to a situation in which the number of storms becomes too small to derive meaningful values for the respective vegetation structural parameters (cf. Carlyle-Moses and Price, 1999). The same problem would emerge in the case of a vegetation that changes less rapidly, but is subject to infrequent rainfall. In both cases, an alternative approach in which the change in canopy characteristics is described as a continuous function of time is to be preferred. This would be equally useful when simulating the effects of more sudden changes in vegetation density on interception, provided that such changes can be expressed in terms of measurable parameters, such as leaf area index or canopy cover fraction. Examples of more or less
38

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION abrupt changes in canopy cover include leaf shedding and reappearance in deciduous forests (Dolman, 1987); damage by strong winds (Neal et al., 1993; Scatena et al., 1993; Waterloo, 1994), pests (Dolman, 1987; Carlyle-Moses and Price, 1999) or pruning (Jackson, 2000); selective logging or thinning (Teklehaimanot et al., 1991; Asdak et al., 1998); and partial harvesting of crops in mixed cropping systems (Van Dijk, 1996). Last, but certainly not least, expressing the vegetation-dependent parameters of the analytical (or Rutter) models of interception in terms of such a widely used vegetation density parameter as leaf area index provides a more solid base for comparing the interception characteristics of different vegetation types and at different locations (cf. Aston, 1979). Theoretically, by introducing a simple continuous function describing changes in canopy cover with time, the revised analytical model of Gash et al. (1995) should become more universally applicable. This chapter discusses some of the conceptual limitations of the Gash et al. (1995) model and offers a number of small but significant adaptations in order to better represent the effects of changes in canopy cover on the interception process. Chapter 5 reports on an application of the improved model to predict rainfall interception for a mixed cropping system in West Java, Indonesia.

4.2.The original and reformulated Gash interception models 4.2.1. The original Gash (1979) interception model The original model of Gash (1979) considers rainfall to occur as a series of discrete events, during which three phases can be distinguished: (i) a wetting phase during which rainfall (Pg in mm) is less than the threshold value required to saturate the canopy (Pg); (ii) a saturation phase (provided rainfall intensity R exceeds evaporation from the wet canopy E); and (iii) a drying phase after rainfall has ceased. The canopy is assumed to have sufficient time to dry between storms. Therefore, the model was not intended to be used in short vegetation types in temperate latitudes, which may stay wet for prolonged periods (J.H.C. Gash, pers. comm.) The vegetation structure is described in terms of a canopy capacity (S in mm) which is defined as the amount of water left on a saturated canopy under zero evaporation conditions after rainfall and canopy drainage have ceased (Gash and Morton, 1978) and a free throughfall coefficient (p), which is the fraction of rainfall that reaches the ground without hitting the canopy. Furthermore there is a fraction pt of incident rainfall that is diverted to the trunks, which represents a storage capacity (St in mm). The value of p is sometimes assumed to be complementary to canopy cover fraction (c). Strictly speaking, this is conceptually wrong if the trunks are considered to be part of the canopy as well. More often, however, (1-p-pt) is considered equal to canopy cover, although Herwitz and Slye (1995) have argued that this is not necessarily the case when the rain falls at an angle. Finally, the ratio of mean evaporation rate from the wet canopy, E (in mm h-1), over mean rainfall rate during rainfall, R (in mm h-1), is required. The respective components of the interception loss are calculated with the equations listed in Table 4.1. Apart from the foregoing abstractions, a number of assumptions are made in the original Gash model, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Rainfall may be represented by a series of discrete storms, separated by periods in which the canopy dries completely. Therefore, measurements of incident rainfall (Pg), throughfall (Tf) and stemflow (Sf) totals on an event basis can be used for modelling rainfall interception;
39

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION 2. The average evaporation rate ( E ) adequately represents evaporation from the canopy during the storms. Similarly, the implicit assumption is that the ratio of average evaporation rate over average rainfall intensity ( E / R ) is equal for all storms; 3. No water drips from the canopy before the canopy capacity (S) is filled; 4. Evaporation from stems occurs only after rainfall has ceased. Assumptions (2) and (3) are clearly simplifications, which nonetheless have produced good results so far (Gash et al., 1980). However, assumption (3) may result in serious over-estimation of the free throughfall coefficient (p) when the latter is derived from the regression between throughfall and rainfall less than Pg (Jackson, 1975; cf. Ubarana, 1996; Schellekens et al., 1999). Finally, although assumption (4) is conceptually wrong this is usually of little practical significance given the difference in trunk and canopy storages and, particularly, the very low trunk evaporation rates (Rutter and Morton, 1977). Nevertheless, a different description is proposed below (Section 4.3.4).

4.2.2. The reformulated Gash et al. (1995) interception model Addressing both a conceptual error in the original model and its inadequate performance in forests with sparse canopies (Teklehaimanot et al., 1991), Gash et al. (1995) proposed a reformulation of the original model. They introduced an additional parameter, the canopy cover fraction, c, and made both the canopy capacity S and the wet canopy evaporation rate linearly dependent on it (cf. Table 4.1). In doing so, a conceptual error was avoided, as it was assumed in the original model that the relative evaporation rate, E / R , is independent of (1-p-pt). This would result in a negative logarithm when calculating the rainfall necessary to saturate the canopy (Pg) in a situation where (1-p-pt) R < E (Gash et al., 1995). For reasons of consistency, the formulations for stemflow and trunk storage were also changed slightly, to the effect that according to the reformulated model precipitation is not directed to the trunk before the canopy is saturated. As yet, there do not appear to be any empirical data that provide an argument to prefer either approximation of reality and the differences in predicted overall interception losses are negligible. The equations relating to the revised model are also given in Table 4.1.

4.3. Proposed adaptations to the reformulated Gash et al. (1995) model 4.3.1. Model assumptions Several adaptations to the reformulated model of Gash et al. (1995) are proposed here. The corresponding equations are given in Table 4.1. The proposed modifications are based on the following hypotheses: 1. The canopy capacity (SL) is linearly related to leaf area index; 2. The relative evaporation rate ( E / R ) can be expressed as a function of leaf area index; 3. The water retained on the stems may be treated in a similar manner as that retained by the canopy, i.e. evaporation from saturated stems during the storm may be included in the simulations. Before discussing the considerations that have lead to the respective hypotheses in some detail it is necessary to introduce another variable used in here to describe vegetation density (in addition to canopy cover fraction c), i.e. leaf area index (L). Leaf area index is
40

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

Component of Original Gash (1979) Revised Gash Present adaptation of interception loss model et al. (1995) model Gash et al. (1995) For m storms insufficient to saturate the canopy (PG#PG ):
(1 p p t ) PG , j
j =1 m

c PG , j
j =1

c P
j =1 j n

G, j

For n storms sufficient to saturate the canopy (PG>PG ): Wetting up of canopy Wet canopy evaporation during storm Evaporation after rainfall ceases Evaporation from stems*

n{ (1 p p t )P S} G
E R

n{ PG S} c
E n (PG , j PG ) R j =1

{c P
j =1
n

G, j

Sv, j }
PG , j )

(P
n j =1

G, j

PG )

j =1

Ej R
v, j

(P

G, j

nS
m+nq j =1

nS

S
j =1
nq j =1

qS t + pt

G, j

qS t + p t PG , j

Included in all terms above as the fraction Ss, j / Sv, j of total interception loss

Parameters Rainfall necessary to saturate the canopy (Pg) Mean wet canopy evaporation rate Canopy capacity Canopy cover fraction

Original Gash (1979) model

RS E ln 1 E (1 p pt ) R

Revised Gash Present adaptation of et al. (1995) model Gash et al. (1995)
RS E ln 1 E cR

RSv , j Ej

Ej ln 1 cj R
L j

E = Ew

E = c Ec

E j = 1 e

)E

S 1-p

S = cSc

S v, j = L j S L + S s , j
c j = 1 e
L j

* for q storms with Pg>St / pt that saturate the stem and (n + m q) (left column) or (n q)

(middle column) that do not. Table 4.1. Equations used in the original, revised and currently adapted versions of the analytical interception model.

defined as the cumulative one-sided area of (healthy) leaves per unit area (Watson, 1947). L and c can be related to one another via the Beer-Lambert equation that describes the attenuation of radiation (e.g. photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) as a function of L (Campbell and Norman, 1986). Since PAR hardly penetrates through leaves, the Beer-Lambert equation may be expressed in terms of canopy cover fraction using very similar parameters (Pitman, 1989). The relationship between canopy cover fraction c and leaf area index L is thus given by:

c = 1 e L
41

[4.1]

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION where is the so-called extinction coefficient. The value of for a particular radiation wavelength depends on leaf distribution and inclination angle and usually ranges between 0.6 and 0.8 in forests (Ross, 1975). For a number of agricultural crops Van Heemst (1988) reported -values between 0.2 and 0.8, with values of 0.5 to 0.7 being the most common.

4.3.2. Canopy capacity and leaf area index Gash et al. (1995) assumed canopy capacity (S) to be linearly related to canopy cover fraction (c). Given Eq. [4.1], this implies that the canopy capacity per unit leaf area decreases exponentially with increasing canopy cover. Following common logic, however, (at least potential) canopy capacity may be expected to be linearly related to leaf area index, rather than to canopy cover, in a given vegetation type of constant physiognomy and configuration (cf. Leonard, 1967). This is corroborated by the results of controlled experiments such as those of Aston (1979), Pitman (1989) and Liu (1998). Expressed as a formula:

S = SLL

[4.2]

where SL denotes specific leaf storage, i.e. the depth of water that can be retained by leaves of a particular species per unit leaf area (Lousteau et al., 1992; Tobn Marin, 1999). In principle, the value of SL can be determined experimentally for a particular species using laboratory methods described for instance by Aston (1979) and Liu (1998). The assumption of constant physiognomy and configuration refers to the hypothesis that the maximum water retention capacity of a leaf of unit area is independent of vegetation density itself. It also refers to the possibility that wind may severely reduce canopy capacity (cf. Hrmann et al., 1996). Furthermore, the retention properties of the canopy may change with density because the inclination of leaves in the canopy may change as they grow older (Beadle, 1997), because the structure and physiology of the canopy may change (leaves are more vertical and less wettable high in the canopy) or because of the increase in leaf density causes leaves to touch, making it impossible to fully saturate the entire canopy. In the extreme (hypothetical) case, the sheltering effect of leaves would become so important that the effective storage capacity increases linearly with canopy cover, rather than with leaf area index. This would strengthen the hypothesis of Gash et al. (1995). However, Pitman (1989) conducted laboratory interception experiments with bracken and found a highly significant linear relationship between leaf area index and canopy capacity up to fairly high values of L (0.40 to 5.88). Summarising, it seems fair to assume a linear relationship between canopy capacity S and leaf area index L (cf. Eq. [4.2]), at least in vegetation of low to moderate L.

4.3.3. Evaporation rate versus leaf area index It is still unclear how vegetation density exactly influences evaporation from a wet canopy. If one assumes that all evaporative energy is supplied by radiation and that no horizontal exchange of energy occurs between surface areas covered and left uncovered by the canopy, then E would be directly related to canopy cover (cf. Gash et al., 1995).

42

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

=
0.5

0 0 L

Fig.4.1. Graphical representation of possible models for the relation between leaf area index (L) and relative wet canopy evaporation rate (expressed by a= E / E a) as a function of the energy exchange coefficient ().

Another hypothesis states that the relative evaporation rate is linearly related to the area of wet canopy, and therefore to leaf area index (Teklehaimanot and Jarvis, 1991; Teklehaimanot et al., 1991). Theoretically, this would imply that the evaporation rate can be infinitely high if leaf area index becomes infinitely large. In reality, of course, L is limited by vegetation physiology, with maximum reported values in the order of 11 to 12 for deciduous forest and 13 to 20 for coniferous forest (Beadle, 1997). Further circumstantial support for a linear relation between L and E comes from the observation that the rate of evaporation of intercepted water after a storm decreases with decreasing canopy storage (Shuttleworth, 1977; Calder and Wright, 1986). From the perspective of Penman-Monteith evaporation theory (Monteith, 1965), a linear relationship between wet canopy evaporation rate and leaf area index seems less likely, unless an increase in L coincides with a substantial decrease in aerodynamic resistance. As a third possible boundary condition, when horizontal exchange of energy also plays a role E may be higher than expected on the basis of either canopy cover or leaf area index, and in theory could even attain the maximum value of a completely closed canopy (cf. Teklehaimanot et al., 1991), regardless whether the energy comes from sensible heat stored within the forest (Meesters and Vugts, 1996; Moore and Fisch, 1986) or is advected from outside (cf. Shuttleworth and Calder, 1979; Schellekens et al., 2000). There is presently no evidence of how relative evaporation rates are related to vegetation characteristics. However, all three conditions outlined above can be described by a single function (Fig. 4.1):
E = a Ea = 1 e L E a

[4.3]

where the coefficient a is a function of leaf area index (L); and a coefficient which may be referred to as the energy exchange coefficient between canopy and atmosphere. The

43

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION definition of E depends on the value of . The situation of a constant evaporation rate is reached when approaches infinity (Fig. 4.1), in which case a E equals the wet evaporation rate of a canopy of full cover (i.e. E c sensu Gash et al., 1995), regardless of vegetation density. If approaches zero, it can be shown that E becomes linearly related to L (Fig. 4.1). Finally, when Eqs. 1 and 3 are compared it appears that E is linearly dependent on canopy cover fraction (cf. Gash et al., 1995) in case equals , and a may be interchanged with c, while E then equals E c of Gash et al. (1995). In Chapter 5, an attempt is made to evaluate the relation expressed by Eq. [4.3] using interception data collected in an agricultural mixed cropping system of changing density in Indonesia. 4.3.4. Stemflow, stem storage capacity and evaporation from stems The third new assumption relates to the estimation of stemflow and stem storage capacity. The word trunk is deliberately avoided here, because substantial volumes of stemflow may also be generated in non-woody vegetation types such as maize (Van Dijk, 1996). Therefore, in the following reference is made to rainfall going to the stems and stem storage capacity, which are consequently denoted by ps and Ss, respectively, instead of pt and St as used in previous versions of the analytical interception model (Gash, 1979; Gash et al., 1995). Following the rationale of Gash et al. (1995) and in contrast with the original model, it is assumed here that no rainfall is directed to the stems before the canopy is saturated. However, the abstraction introduced by Gash (1979) and maintained by Gash et al. (1995) that no water evaporates from the stems during rainfall is questionable, as was already recognised by Gash et al. (1980). It may well be true that the evaporation rate of intercepted water on tree trunks is significantly lower than that of water retained by leaves (Rutter and Morton, 1977), but there will still be evaporation. Therefore, Gash et al. (1980) used a correction factor for dense coniferous forest stands with high trunk storage capacities in the U.K. Of particular importance is the evaporation from trunks and other woody parts in (partially) defoliated forests. Clearly, when measured interception losses exceed the storage capacity of the trunks and branches this can only be explained by assuming evaporation during the storm (cf. Dolman, 1987). The relative magnitudes of the evaporation rate of water stored on the stems and that on the canopy is poorly documented. Work by Rutter et al. (1975) and Rutter and Morton (1977) in the southern U.K. indicated that the evaporation rate from trunks was about 2% of the wet canopy evaporation rate, but these estimates were expressed per unit ground area rather than stem surface area. Also, even in low vegetation, such as the maize and cassava crops discussed in the second part of this study, the surface area of stems may constitute a significant part of the total surface area of the vegetation (3 to 5%; Chapter 5). As such, stems can be expected to play a significant role in the overall process of evaporation during storms. Surface area and roughness of the stems and branches, the degree of exposure to rainfall, radiation and ventilation, the rate of stemflow (governed in turn by rainfall characteristics and tree architecture as well), and the sources of energy available for evaporation (including heat storage in trunks) are all factors that are likely to have an influence on evaporation from these parts (cf. Herwitz, 1985; Moore and Fisch, 1986; Waterloo, 1994; Meesters and Vugts, 1996). Summarising, there are good reasons to treat stem storage (Ss) as an evaporating part of the total storage capacity of the vegetation (Sv). As a consequence, the formulation of stemflow and interception loss from stems becomes:

44

CHAPTER 4 - ADAPTATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF RAINFALL INTERCEPTION Sf = ps PN [4.4] [4.5]

Ei , s =

Ss Ss Ei = Ei Sv S + Ss

where PN is net precipitation, i.e. the sum of stemflow (Sf) and direct and indirect throughfall (Tf); ps is the stemflow fraction of net precipitation (not gross precipitation, as is the case with pt); Ei denotes overall interception loss; S is the canopy capacity, Ss the stem storage and Sv the sum of these two, i.e. total storage capacity. Using Eq. [4.4], ps can be readily determined from stemflow versus net rainfall (i.e. throughfall plus stemflow) measurements. A disadvantage of Eq. [4.4], however, is that the value of stem storage cannot be determined anymore from a regression of stemflow against incident rainfall data and thus has to be estimated. Nevertheless, a good first estimate can still be obtained using the traditional regression approach (Gash and Morton, 1978). Eq. [4.5] is based on the assumption that the evaporation rates from wetted stems/trunks and canopies are directly related to the depths of water stored on the respective parts of the vegetation. This will not be true in all cases, in particular when the water retention capacities of stems and leaves, expressed per unit surface area, are very different, as in tall forest stands in which the trees have rough barks capable of retaining large depths of water (cf. Herwitz, 1985). In such cases, a correction will be needed, e.g. using surface area rather than storage capacity per se. It should be noted that within this new formulation, E includes evaporation from both the canopy and the stems or trunks, which (in theory) should be lower than E in the original formulation of Gash (1979), as the latter relates to the canopy only. Presumably, the difference will often be negligible in practice. In a growing vegetation, a positive relation is expected between the stemflow fraction of net precipitation (ps) and the storage capacity of the stems on the one hand, and a vegetation density parameter such as leaf area index or canopy cover on the other. Indeed, Asdak et al. (1998) found a positive correlation between tree basal area and stemflow fraction in rain forest on Kalimantan experiencing different degrees of logging. In other situations, such as leaf shedding by deciduous or infested trees, stem storage may remain more or less constant whereas the ratio of stemflow to net precipitation is likely to increase (cf. Neal et al., 1993). Less predictable cases include the effects of pruning and storms, such as broken branches and uprooted trees (cf. Scatena et al., 1993). The stem parameters will have to be evaluated separately in such cases, depending on the situation.

45