Introduction
Stemflow represents the portion of precipitation routed by vegetation to the base of tree boles or plants stems. Van Stan and Allen (2020) (herein referred to as VS&A) is a mini review of studies that have attempted to quantify the infiltration area of stemflow once it has reached the soil surface, IT. More specifically, VS&A provide an overview of: (i) the ability of vegetation canopies to funnel rainfall; (ii) the various approaches used to estimate or measure the size of IT; (iii) the different soil properties that may influence the magnitude of IT, and (iv) the potential for and limitations to using dye and stable isotope tracers in IT research. The objectives of this commentary are to: (i) highlight and expand upon important points raised by VS&A in order to advance the understanding of the controls regulating the size of IT, and (ii) provide corrections to and clarification of prior IT results presented in VS&A.
Advancement of the Scientific Understanding of Stemflow Infiltration Area, IT
VS&A state the importance of stemflow in the hydrology and biogeochemistry of vegetated environments is dependent upon IT size. These authors rightfully note that there is a need for further research, especially in natural forest systems, to characterize the size of IT. Previous studies (e.g., Iida et al., 2005; Chinen, 2007) have estimated the magnitude of IT using litter marks (the displacement of leaf litter) or soil scour marks caused by the excess overland flow of stemflow. As VS&A state, litter and scour marks are difficult to interpret quantitatively as they neither represent mean nor maximum IT for a given storm. As such, litter and scour marks have little utility estimating IT.
VS&A correctly state that factors, such as soil hydrophobicity, could influence stemflow infiltrability in certain environments. Nonetheless, the methodology of Herwitz (1986), in which IT values are derived by dividing the stemflow volumetric input rate by the infiltration capacity of the surface soil (i.e., the saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ksat), remains a theoretically sound approach. What is important to highlight is that in situ measurements of Ksat, as a surrogate for stemflow infiltrability in the proximal bole/stem area that include the effect of macropore flow (i.e., Ksat measured with no tension; hydraulic head = 0 cm) are likely to be more representative of the actual infiltrability of stemflow than Ksat measured using tension or Ksat values derived from pedotransfer functions [e.g., ROSETTA model—Schaap et al. (2001)], which estimate soil matrix Ksat.
Critique of Reported Formula and Findings of Previous Research
VS&A (page 1) suggest that the following equation (Equation 1 in VS&A) is the funneling ratio derived by Herwitz (1986):
where F is the funneling ratio (dimensionless), ST represents stemflow volume (L tree−1), P is precipitation depth (mm), and IT is the stemflow infiltration area (m2 tree−1).
The funneling ratio proposed by Herwitz (1986), however, differs from that of Equation (1) in that the basal area of the tree bole, B (m2), rather than IT, is multiplied by P in the denominator of the equation:
VS&A (page 2) also suggest that “… Herwitz's (1986) equation for F employs the concept of IT…”; however, Herwitz (1986) never advocated that B was a surrogate for IT or that B played any role in IT size. Instead, and as aforementioned, Herwitz (1986) derived IT by taking the stemflow input rate and the infiltration capacity of the surface soil into account, and the derived values of ITwere markedly different than B.
VS&A (page 3) cite various studies supporting their claim that “there are pieces of evidence that suggest that IT is larger, 10−1 to 101 m2, than the areas assumed elsewhere, e.g., 10−4-10−1 m2 (Iida et al., 2016; McKee and Carlyle-Moses, 2017; Carlyle-Moses et al., 2018)”. Iida et al. (2016) make no mention of IT (or stemflow) and it is unclear why this study was cited. Furthermore, the range of IT provided by Carlyle-Moses et al. (2018) is for conditions of average rainfall / stemflow input rates within mature, natural forests. They are not representative of extreme precipitation events (e.g., Herwitz, 1986) nor orchards or agricultural fields (e.g., Keen et al., 2010) where soil compaction may reduce stemflow infiltrability.
Table 1 of this commentary expands on Table 1 of VS&A to illustrate a fuller range of IT reported in the literature and provides corrections and / or clarifying statements to some of the results presented in that table. Table 1 of this commentary shows that assessments of IT under a variety of rainfall, soil, and plant morphological conditions are lacking. The majority of prior studies report the maximum extent of IT (e.g., Voigt, 1960; Pressland, 1973) or use “litter marks” or erosional soil scouring for estimating IT (e.g., Iida et al., 2005; Chinen, 2007) which simply do not provide reliable quantitative evidence of average IT. Litter marks may be seasonal and are at least episodic phenomena persisting across events (e.g., Iida et al., 2005). Litter marks are not created during low intensity events (as stated by VS&A) but rather during peak periods of heavier rain with high stemflow funneling. What does emerge from Table 1 is that studies conducted thus far using in situ dye experiments and direct observations of stemflow infiltration or studies utilizing physically-based approaches such as dividing the stemflow input rate by the soil Ksat suggest that IT associated with average rainfall and stemflow rates are limited <1 m2 tree−1 in environments (e.g., mature, natural forests) where the soil infiltrability can be expected to have a magnitude of order of 1 x 102 or 1 x 103 mm h−1. Additionally, the findings presented in Table 1 suggest that IT ≥ 1 m2 tree−1 may sometimes arise during large / extreme rainfalls and stemflow rates in these forest environments and under relatively smaller rainfall and stemflow rates in environments (e.g., agricultural plantations, orchards, agroforestry areas, and urban environments) where infiltrability is likely <1 x 102 mm h−1.
Table 1
| Setting and study | Method | IT (m2 tree−1) | IT Measurement type | Additions, corrections and/or clarifications to VS&A |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORESTS AND FOREST PLANTATIONS | ||||
| Aboal et al. (1999) | Empirical Extrapolation Stemflow sampled for 30 trees representing 6 tree species within a laurel forest, Canary Islands. A single IT for each species was derived by extrapolating empirical relationships put forth by Tanaka et al.; Tanaka et al. (1991; 1996). Mean basal areas of the 6 species ranged from 1.5 × 10−2 to 9.1 × 10−2 m2. | 0.277–0.722 | Range of annual maximum IT values for individual trees | Addition: Not Included in VS&A |
| Carlyle-Moses et al. (2018) | Dye Experiment Juvenile pine plantation in British Columbia, Canada. Dye tracer was used at the base of nine small lodgepole pine trees (basal area range = 1.80 × 10−3 to 3.14 × 10−2 m2) during each of three rain events (5.9 to 16.0 mm). | 0.0017 | Average IT value for all trees across 3 rain events | Correction: IT values presented by VS&A for this reference are the tree basal area values. |
| Carlyle-Moses et al. (2018) | Stemflow Rate divided by Ksat Lowland tropical forest, Cambodia. IT estimated as mean stemflow rate (0.853 L h−1) divided by measured Ksat of 531 mm h−1. 130 rain events totalling 1500.9 mm. | 0.0016 | Average annual IT value for all trees | |
| Carlyle-Moses et al. (2018) | Stemflow Rate divided by Ksat Global mature, natural forests. IT estimated from mean stemflow rates (0.1 to 7.7 L h−1) from 16 studies conducted in natural forests and the typical range of Ksat in mature forests (100 to > 1,000 mm h−1). | 0.0001–0.1 | Range of average annual or season-long IT values for all trees | Addition: Not Included in VS&A |
| Durocher (1990) | Direct Observation Stemflow was measured from 14 trees within a red oak plantation that also contains sweet chestnut. Mean basal area of trees in the study plot was 3.14 x 10−2 m2. Measured Ksat of soil (micropores + macropores) averaged 713 mm h−1. | Stemflow directly infiltrated adjacent to trees due to high infiltrability of soil. | Average season-long IT value for all trees | Addition: Not Included in VS&A |
| Gonzalez-Ollauri et al. (2020) | Dye Experiment Blue dye was applied to the downslope sides of two sycamore trees in Aberdeenshire, UK using a 20-L backpack sprayer for 35 min resulting in an equivalent rainfall intensity of 45.7 mm h−1 to identify areas of double-funneling. It should be noted that the authors describe the precipitation at the site as being characterized by frequent, low-intensity rain events. The two trees were part of a stand of trees found on a 20.3 ± 11.6° slope. Ksat of the soil was 256 mm h−1. | No data | Correction: VS&A state that, based on correspondence with the corresponding author of the article, the dye extended 1.27 and 0.63 m downslope of the two study trees. VS&A use the distance the dye extended downhill as the radius of the IT areas; however, the dye stained IT areas are clearly not circular and occupies only a fraction of the areas suggested by VS&A [see Figure 2B. of Gonzalez-Ollauri et al. (2020)]. | |
| Herwitz (1986) | Stemflow Rate divided by Ksat Stemflow measured from eight trees (basal area ranged from 4.9 x 10−2 to 1.82 x 10−1 m2) in a tropical rainforest of Australia during a 51.6 mm rainfall with a duration of 42 minutes (mean intensity = 73.7 mm h−1). Ksat was measured at 372 mm h−1. | 0.13–1.52 | Range of IT extents for individual trees for a single extreme rain event | Clarification: During an extreme period of the storm when 11.8 mm of rain fell over 6 min (intensity = 118 mm h−1), IT expanded to a maximum of 3.09 m2 tree−1, the maximum IT listed by VS&A for this study. |
| Schwärzel et al. (2012) | Dye Experiment Applied 180 L of simulated stemflow over a 180-min period (60 L h−1) to a single European beech tree in Germany. Used dye to determine IT. It should be noted that the non-water repellent leaf litter was removed around the tree and the soil surface was sprayed with water. Ksat measured in the field was 997 mm h−1. | 0.245 | IT extent for a single simulated event value for an individual tree | |
| Tischer et al. (2020) | Dye Experiment Trunk area of one European beech (BA = 1.37 x 10−1 m2) and one sycamore maple (BA = 1.40 x 10−1 m2) was dye-stained in advance. Stemflow patterns and IT were visually quantified following natural rain events of <4.2 to 7.8 mm h−1 (Σ 23.2 mm 3 weeks−1) | 0.023 beech 0.041 maple | Maximum extent of ITfor one European beech and one sycamore maple tree over a 3-week period | Addition: This is a newly published study and was not available to VS&A |
| Voigt (1960) | Direct Observations Stemflow from 7 trees in each of three forest types (red pine, hemlock, and beech) was measured. Basal areas of trees ranged from an average of 1.82 x 10−2 m2 for the beech trees to 4.57 x 10−2 m2 for hemlock. Rainfall conditions were not provided. | 0.25 red pine 0.44 beech 0.52 hemlock | Maximum annual extent of IT values for all trees of a given species | Correction: The 1960 paper cited by VS&A and listed in the reference list is incorrect. The proper 1960 Voigt reference is cited in this paper. |
| SAVANNA AND SHRUBLAND | ||||
| Chinen (2007) | Erosional Scour Marks and Rills The extent of scour marks, including rills, were measured and assumed to be associated with stemflow produced during an intense rainfall from three tree species occupying an immobile sand dune in the Republic of Niger. The rainfall depth was 20.7 mm rainfall in which the bulk of the rain fell within 20 min (intensity c. 60 mm h−1). | No data | Single extreme event | Clarification: IT was not measured, but the extent of traces of surface runoff and rills extended c. 4 to 7 m in the downslope direction of the trees. There is no mention of IT varying from 1.12 to 4.75 m2 tree−1 as indicated in Table 1 of VS&A, although it seems VS&A based their values on Figure 4 of Chinen (2007), which provides a sketch and scale of the traces of erosional scours and rills that developed during an extreme rainfall event. |
| Návar (2011) | Direct Observations Stemflow infiltration area monitored for several Tamaulipan thornscrub shrub species and temperate tree species in northeastern Mexico over 18 months. | 0.03 | Maximum extent of IT for all trees across all rain events (maximum rain depth = 52 mm) | Addition: Not included in VS&A |
| Pressland (1973) | Direct Observations Arid woodland, stemflow from 28 sampled trees (basal area range = 2.6 x 10−3 to 1.0 x 10−1 m2), was found to represent 18% of rainfall with individual rainfall events ranging from 0.25 to 120 mm. | 0.10–1.14 | Range of maximum IT extents for individual trees over 18 months | Clarification: Observed infiltration was constrained to within 0.15 m of the boles of small trees and 0.45 m of large tree boles. This suggests, taken the basal area of the trees into account, the given maximum IT range for rain events up to 120 mm. |
| Pressland (1976) | Direct Observations Arid woodland in proximity to where the Pressland (1973) study took place. Stemflow was not measured, but stemflow infiltration was observed during rainfall events. | No data | Clarification: Stemflow infiltrated to within 50 cm of large trees (circumference > 40 cm, basal area > 1.27 x 10−2 m2) and to within 30 cm of small trees (circumference <20 cm, basal area <3.18 x 10−3 m2). It is not possible to derive IT with available information, but likely on the order of that for Pressland (1973). | |
| AGRICULTURAL PLANTATIONS, ORCHARDS AND AGRO-FORESTRY | ||||
| Charlier et al. (2009) | Model SimulationSimulated versus observed runoff from a banana plantation plot with an average Ksat between 67 and 75 mm h−1 was estimated for 18 rain events ranging from 10.0 to 139.2 mm with mean intensities of 11.0 to 47.2 mm h−1 and maximum 5-min intensities of 45.6 to 144.0 mm h−1. The study evaluated if inclusion of stemflow in the models improved simulation results. | No data | Clarification: Was not measured or estimated. Inclusion of stemflow improved modeling results of runoff from the plot. However, from Figures 5, 7, and 8 of Charlier et al. (2009), stemflow is shown to not be the main contributor to overland flow from the plot. Extreme example due to special morphology of banana plants (funnel like shape). | |
| Gómez et al. (2002) | Stemflow Rate divided by Ksat Stemflow measured from three mature olive trees (mean basal area of 5.3 x 10−2 m2) in an orchard situated in Spain. IT estimated as mean stemflow rate divided by measured Ksat of 81 mm h−1. | 0.108 | Average IT value for three trees over 12 rain events | Clarification: IT average presented in this table was calculated for the three trees for the study period (12 rain events). For the largest rain event (77.1 mm) IT for the three trees averaged 0.762 m2 tree−1 (range = 0.53 to 1.12 m2 tree−1). |
| Keen et al. (2010) | Erosional Scour Marks Macadamia orchard, Australia. Seven 9-year-old trees were sampled for stemflow and the erosion associated with stemflow was monitored. Total study-period rainfall depth was not provided but did include a 217 mm event with a mean intensity of 6.8 mm h−1. No estimate of Ksat is provided; however, the authors state that the exposed soil is inherently erodible and is also subjected to erosion during harvesting. | 2.1 | Maximum IT extent for any tree over 16 months | Correction: Study period was 16 months, not 18 months as reported by VS&A. Clarification: IT was not derived, however, the authors state that it was “confined to small areas of the entire orchard.” It is not entirely clear from the article, but the area of erosion from the base of the trees appears to have been 2.1 m2. If so, this may represent the maximum IT per tree in the orchard. |
| Rashid and Askari (2014)/Rashid et al. (2015) | Litter Marks 18 to 19-year-old oil palm plantation in Malaysia. IT determined using the litter mark method for 30 trees in which the extent of bare dark areas around the base of trees was assumed to be created by stemflow. | 6.8–11.8 | Range of maximum IT values. No time scale provided. | Clarification: From Figure 1 of Rashid and Askari (2014) no leaf litter can be seen. Since bare areas around the base of trees may be caused by a variety of factors (allelopathy, competition, herbicide use) and because stemflow was not measured nor were direct observations of stemflow induced overland flow made during this study, there is no definitive proof that these dark, bare areas were caused by stemflow or represent IT. Addition: Rashid et al. (2015) include the same IT data as Rashid and Askari (2014). VS&A did not reference Rashid et al. (2015). |
| URBAN | ||||
| Iida et al. (2005)* | Litter Marks Litter mark extents for 16 trees within the University of Tsukuba campus, including Formosa sweet gum and two species of evergreen oaks, were measured in March 2005. Stemflow input rate and Ksat were not reported. | 0.36–1.22 (Average = 0.81) | Range (and average) of maximum IT extents for 16 trees for a single 88.5 mm rain event | Correction: Litter marks occurred at the peak intensities during an 88.5 mm rain event observed on 15–16 January 2005 with maximum and mean intensities of 9.5 and 2.3 mm h−1, respectively. VS&A incorrectly suggest that two rain events created the litter marks. Additionally, the DBH values in Table 1 of VS&A are not correct (those are the diameters at the tree base) and ranged from 18.1 to 39.2 cm with an average of 28.6 cm. Also see Table 1 footnote (*). |
| Tanaka et al. (1991)** | Infiltration Area, Erosional Scour, and Vegetation Marks | |||
| The extent of infiltration area marks (i.e., wetted infiltration areas on the soil surface), erosional scour marks and vegetation marks were measured for 12 trees within and outside of the University of Tsukuba campus. It should be noted that intensities of stemflow and Ksat were not measured. DBH values provided in Table 1 of VS&A were likely derived from the diameter at tree base indicated in Figure 4 of Tanaka et al. (1991). | 0.17–1.03 (Average = 0.60) | Range of maximum IT extents derived from infiltration area mark for 7 trees for a single 2.0 mm rain event; erosional scour marks and vegetation marks based on some earlier rainfall events | Clarification: All marks except for one indicated that IT < 1 m2. The infiltration area marks generated by stemflow associated with the 2.0 mm rainfall are not to be confused with litter marks or erosional scour marks that may be formed during high stemflow funneling episodes. Also see Table 1 footnote (**). | |
| Summary In all but a few extreme rainfall events, IT is < 1 m2 under average conditions for forested ecosystems. There is no compelling evidence to indicate otherwise. For agricultural and urban settings with soil compaction average IT could be larger than 1 m2 in some cases but convincing evidence is lacking at this juncture. More work is necessary to quantify IT for a range of ecosystems, especially different forest types. | ||||
Stemflow infiltration areas (IT) from previous research.
The statements in VS&A “IT > 1 m2 tree−1 has been reported under low rainfall intensity, 1–2 mm h−1” and “photographs of litter marks showing IT = 0.4 to 1.3 m2 tree−1 under non-extreme precipitation conditions” cannot be derived from or substantiated by Iida et al. (2005) as the litter marks were formed during an earlier 88.5 mm rain event when the maximum intensity of 9.5 mm h−1 was reached, not during portions of that event with lower rain intensity. In addition, the 22-23 March, 2005 event only created limited ponding close to the tree trunk (Figure 4, Iida et al., 2005) when rain intensity was 1.5 mm h−1 and no litter was displaced during the entire storm, despite a maximum intensity of 6.5 mm h−1. As a comparison, IT values of 0.34 and 0.30 m2 were calculated based on a maximum stemflow intensity of 1,100 cm3 (30 s)−1 and average infiltration capacities of 383 and 441 mm h−1 for two Formosa sweet gum trees (Iida et al., unpublished data).
The description “post-storm litter marks caused by infiltration excess (Tanaka et al., 1991.)” in VS&A (page 3) is not correct since Tanaka et al. (1991) did not observe any litter marks. Instead, the extent of IT was inferred as the extent of the infiltration area marks (i.e., the area of wetted surface soil). It should be noted that IT using this method may be overestimated due to capillarity of the surface soil increasing the wetted area in the absence of infiltration.
Statements
Author contributions
DC-M was the primary author of the manuscript and a co-originator of the commentary. SI contributed to the text and was a major contributor to the table. SG and PL contributed to the text of the paper, making several editorial changes and suggestions. SG also played a major role in the revision, reconfiguring the table into final form. BM contributed to the text and to the table. KN contributed ideas to the text. AT contributed ideas to the text and contributed to the table. TT contributed to the text. DL contributed to the text, the table and was a co-originator of the commentary. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
This commentary was written in conjunction with Project LinkA20045 of the international scientific collaboration program i-LINK+ 2018 funded by the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AboalJ. R.MoralesD.HernándezM.JiménezM. S. (1999). The measurement and modelling of the variation of stemflow in a laurel forest in Tenerife, Canary Islands. J. Hydrol.221, 161–175. 10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00086-4
2
Carlyle-MosesD. E.IidaS.GermerS.LlorensP.MichalzikB.NankoK.et al. (2018). Expressing stemflow commensurate with its ecohydrological importance. Adv. Water Resour.121, 472–479. 10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.08.015
3
CharlierJ.-B.MoussaR.CattanP.CabidocheY.-M.VoltzM. (2009). Modelling runoff at the plot scale taking into account rainfall partitioning by vegetation: application to stemflow of banana (Musa spp.) plant. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.13, 2151–2168. 10.5194/hess-13-2151-2009
4
ChinenT. (2007). An observation of surface runoff and erosion caused by Acacia albida stemflow in dry savanna, in the south-western Republic of Niger. Geogr. Rep. Tokyo Metrop. Univ.42, 21–30.
5
DurocherM. G. (1990). Monitoring spatial variability of forest interception. Hydrol. Process.4, 215–229, 10.1002/hyp.3360040303
6
GómezJ. A.VanderlindenK.GiráldezJ. V.FereresE. (2002). Rainfall concentration under olive trees. Agric. Water Manage.55, 53–70. 10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00181-0
7
Gonzalez-OllauriA.StokesA.MickovskiS. B. (2020). A novel framework to study the effect of tree architectural traits on stemflow yield and its consequences for soil-water dynamics. J. Hydrol.582:124448. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124448
8
HerwitzS. R. (1986). Infiltration-excess caused by stemflow in a cyclone prone tropical rainforest. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms11, 401–412. 10.1002/esp.3290110406
9
IidaS.KakubariJ.TanakaT. (2005). “Litter marks” indicating infiltration area of stemflow-induced water. Tsukuba Geoenviron. Sci.1, 27–31.
10
IidaS.ShimizuT.TamaiK.KabeyaN.ShimizuA.ItoE.et al. (2016). Interrelationships among dry season leaf fall, leaf flush and transpiration: insights from sap flux measurements in a tropical dry deciduous forest. Ecohydrology9, 472–486. 10.1002/eco.1650
11
KeenB.CoxJ.MorrisS.DalbyT. (2010). “Stemflow runoff contributes to soil erosion at the base of macadamia trees,” in 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World (Brisbane, QLD), 240–243.
12
McKeeA. J.Carlyle-MosesD. E. (2017). Modelling stemflow production by juvenile lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) trees. J. For. Res.28, 565–576. 10.1007/s11676-016-0336-9
13
NávarJ. (2011). Stemflow variation in Mexico's northeastern forest communities: its contribution to soil moisture content and aquifer recharge. J. Hydrol.408, 35–42. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.006
14
PresslandA. J. (1973). Rainfall partitioning by an arid woodland (Acacia aneura F. Muell.) in south-western Queensland. Aust. J. Bot.21, 235–245. 10.1071/BT9730235
15
PresslandA. J. (1976). Soil moisture redistribution as affected by throughfall and stemflow in an arid zone shrub community. Aust. J. Bot.24, 641–649. 10.1071/BT9760641
16
RashidN. S. A.AskariM. (2014). “Litter Marks” Around Oil Palm Tree Base Indicating Infiltration Area of Stemflow-Induced Water. Johor Bahru: National Seminar Civil Engineering Research.
17
RashidN. S. A.AskariM.TanakaT.SimunekJ.van GenuchtenM. T. (2015). Inverse estimation of soil hydraulic properties under oil palm trees. Geoderma241–242, 306–312. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.12.003
18
SchaapM. G.LeijF. J.van GenuchtenM. T. (2001). ROSETTA: a computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol.252, 163–176. 10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00466-8
19
SchwärzelK.EbermannS.SchallingN. (2012). Evidence of double-funneling effect of beech trees by visualization of flow pathways using dye tracer. J. Hydrol.470–471, 184–192. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.048
20
TanakaT.TaniguchiM.TsujimuraM. (1996). Significance of stemflow in groundwater recharge. 2: a cylindrical infiltration model for evaluating the stemflow contribution to groundwater recharge. Hydrol. Proc. 10, 81–88.
21
TanakaT.TsujimuraM.TaniguchiM. (1991). Infiltration area of stemflow-induced water. Ann. Rep. Inst. Geosci. Univ. Tsukuba17, 30–32.
22
TischerA.MichalzikB.LotzeR. (2020). Non-uniform but highly preferential stemflow routing along bark surfaces and actual smaller infiltration areas than previously assumed: a case study on European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus L.). Ecohydrol. Ecol. 13:1–12. 10.1002/eco.2230
23
Van StanJ. T. I. I.AllenS. T. (2020). What we know about stemflow's infiltration area. Front. For. Glob. Change3:61. 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00061
24
VoigtG. K. (1960). Distribution of rainfall under forest stands. For. Sci.6, 2–10. 10.1093/forestscience/6.1.2
Summary
Keywords
stemflow, infiltration, dye tracer, forest hydrology, funneling ratio
Citation
Carlyle-Moses DE, Iida S, Germer S, Llorens P, Michalzik B, Nanko K, Tanaka T, Tischer A and Levia DF (2020) Commentary: What We Know About Stemflow's Infiltration Area. Front. For. Glob. Change 3:577247. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.577247
Received
29 June 2020
Accepted
17 August 2020
Published
30 September 2020
Volume
3 - 2020
Edited by
David Findlay Scott, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Canada
Reviewed by
Georgianne W. Moore, Texas A&M University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Carlyle-Moses, Iida, Germer, Llorens, Michalzik, Nanko, Tanaka, Tischer and Levia.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Darryl E. Carlyle-Moses dcarlyle@tru.ca
This article was submitted to Forest Hydrology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.