Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Spatial distribution of annual interception at landscape level; see equation 1.
- Figure 2
Distribution of rainfall interception in a rural SubRAD (a) and city SubRAD (b) during a summer storm (May 31, 1993). P is gross precipitation, E is evaporation, C is canopy storage, and I is canopy rainfall interception. P, E, C, and I have units in mm of water.
- Figure 3
Temporal distribution of rainfall interception processes in a rural SubRAD (a) and city SubRAD (b) during a winter storm (December 3, 1994). P is gross precipitation, E is evaporation, C is canopy storage, and I is canopy rainfall interception.
Tables
- Table 2a.
Annual rainfall interception at the urban forest canopy level (mm), Sacramento County.
Sector Gross precipitation Interception Free throughfall Leaf drip Stem flow City 393.2 23.5 266.3 101.0 2.5 Suburban 433.2 56.3 186.5 238.0 2.7 Rural 415.5 55.4 121.2 236.3 2.6 County 414.1 45.9 186.3 179.3 2.6 Sector Landscape level Urban forest canopy level City 1.8 6.0 Suburban 2.6 13.0 Rural 0.6 13.3 County 1.0 11.1 Tree type/height class Leaf area (% of total SubRAD) Rural SubRAD City SubRAD Broadleaf deciduous Largea 5.7% 27.2% Mediumb 9.5% 21.4% Smallc 0.0% 1.4% Subtotal 15.2% 50.0% Broadleaf evergreen Large 39.0% 0.9% Medium 29.1% 2.0% Small 0.1% 1.7% Subtotal 68.2% 4.6% Conifer Large 10.3% 7.4% Medium 4.5% 34.3% Small 1.8% 0.4% Subtotal 16.6% 42.1% Palm Large 0% 1.7% Medium 0% 1.5% Small 0% 0.1% Subtotal 0% 3.3% Average LAI 6.1 3.7 Flood analysis eventsa Actual precipitation Interception (%) Year Amount/duration (mm [hours]) Date Pb(mm) Duration (hours) Rural SubRAD City SubRAD Leaf-off Leaf-on Leaf-off Leaf-on 200 51.6 [3] Jan. 9, 1995 64 5 7.4% 8.7% 2.4% 4.9% 100 40.4 [2] Apr. 3, 1996c 49 6 9.1% 9.7% 3.8% 7.4% 25 32.0 [2] Jan. 10, 1995d 32 3 9.6% 11.0% 5.7% 8.9% 5 22.4 [2] Feb. 28, 1991 24 4 15.3% 17.9% 6.4% 10.7% 2 11.4 [1] Feb. 18, 1996 15 2 32.8% 36.9% 9.9% 19.7%
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.