HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Daamen, C. C. Articles by McNaughton, K. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Daamen, C. C. Articles by McNaughton, K. G. Agricola Articles by Daamen, C. C. Articles by McNaughton, K. G. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Other Models

Modeling Energy Fluxes from Sparse Canopies and Understorys

The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd., P.O. Box 23, Kerikeri 0470, New Zealand

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Resistance networks for the (a) interactive, (b) patch and (c) Penman-Monteith models. Where it is used in the text the vapor density deficit D is marked against the relevant network node, subscripts a, c, and s denote the deficit at reference height, for the in-canopy air and at the surface respectively. The resistance subscript h denotes an aerodynamic resistance between a component surface and the in-canopy air and subscript c denotes a surface (or stomatal) resistance

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Land surface evaporation when both component surfaces have equal surface resistance. Data shown are from the interactive model and from an altered patch model with upper resistors equal to ra. Data for rc,1 = rc,2 = 0 s m-1 are plotted on the left of the figure

View larger version (64K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Evaporation from a millet land surface for a range of component surface resistances. Data shown are evaporation estimated with the interactive model EN (a), the difference between patch and interactive models EP - EN (b), and the difference between Penman-Monteith and interactive models EPM - EN (c). The figures are plotted on a log-log scale except for the leftmost column and the lowest row for which the surface resistance = 0 s m-1 is not consistent with the log scale

View larger version (60K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Evaporation from a steppe land surface for a range of component surface resistances. See Fig. 3 for a description of data shown

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 The difference in evaporation between the Penman-Monteith and interactive models for the grass overstory of a steppe land surface EPM,1 - EN,1. EPM,1 was calculated using Eq. [1] and [2]. The figures are plotted on a log-log scale except for the leftmost column and the lowest row for which the surface resistance = 0 s m-1 is not consistent with the log scale

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Comparison of the differences in land surface evaporation between the patch and interactive models (EP - EN) and the Penman-Monteith and interactive models (EPM - EN). In this figure rc,1 = 100 s m-1 and rc,2 = 10000 s m-1 for all land surfaces listed in Table 1. The differences are plotted against the resistance ratio where h is the effective boundary layer resistance of both component surfaces in parallel

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 As for Fig. 6, with decoupling coefficient ls as the ordinate axis