Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
C. Federer (1980)
Paper birch and white oak saplings differ in responses to drought.Forest Science, 26
K. Mcnaughton, T. Black (1973)
A study of evapotranspiration from a Douglas fir forest using the energy balance approachWater Resources Research, 9
Federer Federer (1977)
Leaf resistance and xylem potential differ among broadleaved speciesFor. Sci., 23
C. Federer, D. Lash (1978)
Simulated streamflow response to possible differences in transpiration among species of hardwood treesWater Resources Research, 14
T. Hinckley, J. Lassoie, S. Running (1978)
Temporal and Spatial Variations in the Water Status of Forest TreesForest Science, 24
P. Jarvis (1976)
The Interpretation of the Variations in Leaf Water Potential and Stomatal Conductance Found in Canopies in the FieldPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 273
R. Kunze, G. Uehara, K. Graham (1968)
Factors Important in the Calculation of Hydraulic Conductivity1Soil Science Society of America Journal, 32
H. Penman (1963)
Vegetation and hydrology
I. Cowan (1965)
Transport of Water in the Soil-Plant-Atmosphere SystemJournal of Applied Ecology, 2
Federer Federer (1975)
EvapotranspirationRev. Geophys. Space Phys., 13
W. Baier (1969)
Concepts of soil moisture availability and their effect on soil moisture estimates from a meteorological budgetAgricultural Meteorology, 6
H. Penman (1968)
Available and accessible water
G. Campbell (1974)
A SIMPLE METHOD FOR DETERMINING UNSATURATED CONDUCTIVITY FROM MOISTURE RETENTION DATASoil Science, 117
C. Federer (1979)
A soil-plant-atmosphere model for transpiration and availability of soil waterWater Resources Research, 15
Jarvis Jarvis (1976)
The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the fieldPhil. Trans. R. Soc. London B, 273
J. Ritchie (1973)
Influence of Soil Water Status and Meteorological Conditions on Evaporation from a Corn Canopy1Agronomy Journal, 65
Monteith Monteith (1964)
Evaporation and environment, In The state and movement of water in living organismsSymp. Soc. Exp. Biol., 19
F. Molz, I. Remson, A. Fungaroli, R. Drake (1968)
Soil Moisture Availability for TranspirationWater Resources Research, 4
O. Denmead, R. Shaw (1962)
Availability of Soil Water to Plants as Affected by Soil Moisture Content and Meteorological Conditions1Agronomy Journal, 54
Boughton Boughton (1966)
A mathematical model for relating runoff to rainfall with daily dataInst. Eng. Aust. Civ. Eng. Trans., 8
T. Black (1979)
Evapotranspiration from Douglas fir stands exposed to soil water deficitsWater Resources Research, 15
J. Stewart, A. Thom (1973)
Energy budgets in pine forestQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 99
W. Staple (1965)
MOISTURE TENSION, DIFFUSIVITY, AND CONDUCTIVITY OF A LOAM SOIL DURING WETTING AND DRYINGCanadian Journal of Soil Science, 45
Kunze Kunze, Uehara Uehara, Graham Graham (1968)
Factors important in the calculation of hydraulic conductivitySoil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 32
The assumption that transpiration is the lesser of an atmospheric demand function and a water supply function was tested by simulation with Federer's (1979) soil‐plant‐atmosphere model. The best estimate of atmospheric demand is called unstressed transpiration, defined as the transpiration that would occur in ambient conditions if stomata were unaffected by plant‐water potential. For practical purposes the Penman equation provides a good estimate of unstressed transpiration for short vegetation but not for forests. Even when atmospheric variables and the Penman estimate are held constant among forest canopies, unstressed transpiration can vary by a factor of two because of variation both in the maximum value of leaf conductance and in the ratio of canopy conductance to leaf conductance. The best water supply function incorporates depth variation of soil water potential and of root and soil properties. A more practical supply function uses the ratio of available water in the root zone, W, to maximum available water WM. The maximum available water is soil water held at potentials less than that at which the hydraulic conductivity is 2 mm/d and greater than the critical leaf water potential at which stomata are completely closed. Using a mature hardwood forest as a standard, various parameters were varied to examine their effects on a water supply function defined as a supply constant times W/WM. The supply constant was found to be independent of soil texture and physical properties. Root density and the internal resistance of the plant to water flow were the most important determinants of the supply constant. Reasonable variation of root density and internal resistance produced variation in the constant from 1.9 mm/h, which implies that supply is less than demand only when soil is very dry, to 0.5 mm/hr, which implies that supply cannot meet the demand even when the soil is wet.
Water Resources Research – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 1982
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.