Quart. J . R. Met. SOC. (1979), 105, pp.

43-55
551.573 556.133

An analytical model of rainfall interception by forests

By J. H. C. GASH Institute af Hydrology, Waflingford, Oxfordshire
(Received 22 December 1977; revised 2 June 1978)

SUMMARY
The description of the evaporation of rainfall intercepted by forests in terms of a regression of evaporation loss on incident rainfall is discussed and some of the assumptions implicit in that method are re-examined. The two major factors which control the evaporation of intercepted rainfall are identified. These are: (i) the amount of time that the canopy spends saturated during rainfall and the evaporation rate applicable under these conditions; and (ii) the canopy saturation capacity and the number of times this store is emptied, by drying out after the cessation of rainfall. A model is then constructed which is conceptually similar to the Rutter model, but which replaces that model's numerical approach with an analysis by storm events. The evaporation from a saturated canopy during rainfall is estimated from the Penman-Monteith equation; the evaporation after rain has ceased, the effect of small storms insufficient to saturate the canopy, wetting-up the canopy and evaporation from the trunks are added as separate terms. The model has been tested against data from Thetford Forest in East Anglia, with satisfactory agreement between observation and estimation. It is suggested that the model may be capable of making useful estimates of the evaporation of intercepted rainfall, solely from rainfall measurements.

1 . INTRODUCTION
There have been many previous studies of the interception and evaporation of rainfall by forests. The results of these studies have frequently been expressed in the form of empirical regression equations between interception loss and rainfall : that is, as functions of the form

I = aP,+b

where I is the depth of water intercepted and lost by evaporation, the interception loss;

PG,the gross rainfall incident on the canopy; and a and b are regression coefficients. Such an
equation can be used either to describe sets of storm data, or, if it is assumed there is only one rainfall event per day, to describe daily interception loss as a function of daily gross rainfall. The reviews of Zinke (1967) and Blake (1975) contain examples of this approach. Helvey and Patric (1965) reviewed results from studies in hardwood forests in the eastern United States and concluded that two regression equations, one for winter and one for summer, were adequate to describe the loss from all hardwood forests in that region. However, the approach has been criticized (e.g. Jackson 1975) for taking no account of such variables as rainfall intensity and duration, and the interval between storms. A further criticism is that the results are empirical and can be extrapolated only to similar forests in areas of climate similar to that where the original data were collected. In contrast to the regression equation approach, Rutter er al. (1971) have constructed a physically based computer model, which uses inputs of rainfall and the meteorological variables controlling evaporation, to calculate a running water balance of a forest canopy of known structure, thereby producing an estimate of the interception loss. The model has been tested against measurements from several forests (Rutter et al. 1975) and must be considered the most rigorous method for estimating interception presently available. The model does, however, have practical disadvantages : it requires hourly meteorological data, which are seldom available, and a complex computer programme, which is time consuming to construct and operate.
43

4 4

J. H. C . GASH

This paper re-examines some of the assumptions implicit in the regression equation approach. Acknowledging these assumptions, a model is then defined which, while retaining some of the simplicity of the regression equation, includes much of the fundamental physical reasoning explicit in the Rutter model.

2. THEORY OF REGRESSION

EQUATIONS

For any storm large enough to saturate the canopy, Horton (1919) was the first to express interception loss as
I =

sd

Edt+S

(2)

where E is the evaporation rate of intercepted water during rainfall; S, the canopy capacity (the amount of water on the canopy when rainfall and throughfall have ceased and the canopy is saturated); t, the duration of rainfall; and evaporation from trunks is neglected. If we now separate evaporation before and after saturation of the canopy:

where t is the time taken for saturation of the canopy to occur. Defining a mean evaporation rate, 1,from a saturated canopy during rainfall by

I ?

= (l/(t

- t ) ) L : E dt

(4)

with rainfall similarly described by a mean rainfall rate:

R
we have

(l/(t- t$R

dt,

P,-P;, = R(t-t)

(5)

where PA is the amount of rain necessary to saturate the canopy. Assuming there is no drip from the canopy before saturation, PA is also given by
(l-p-p,)P& =

s+

Edt

(6)

where, following Rutter et al. (1971, 1975), p is the free throughfall coefficient, i.e. the proportion of rain which falls through the canopy without striking a surface, and pr, the proportion which is diverted to the trunks as stemflow. Substituting Eqs. (4) and ( 5 ) into Eq. (3)

Substituting for PA from Eq. (6) and rearranging:

I = (E/R)P,+

(s+

1 )

d t ) (1 -(E/K)(l- p - pJ-

>

(7)

RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

45

Equating the coefficients of Eqs. (1) and (7), the coefficients of the regression equation can be identified as:
a = E/R, and b

46

J. H. C. GASH

2. The logarithmic dependence of the 'drip-rate' on the degree of canopy saturation, observed by Rutter et al. (1971), is sufficiently sensitive that there is in effect virtually n o drip from the canopy during wetting-up; and the amount of water on the canopy at the end of a storm is quickly reduced (within 20 to 30 minutes) to S, the minimum value necessary for saturation, independent of the initial value when rain ceased. The effect of these assumptions in the model can best be assessed by its application to real data and by analysing the sensitivity of the results to the various parameters. Their consequence, however, is in effect to separate the dependence of interception loss on 'forest' parameters, such as storage, S, from meteorological variables, such as evaporation rate. By making the dependence of interception loss on these parameters explicit, rather than implicit as they are in a regression equation, it is hpped that results can be more readily extrapolated between forests and climatic regions.
(b) Evaporation from a saturated canopy

Consider a series of n storms each large enough to saturate the canopy and each separated by a sufficient period for the canopy to dry. If Eq. (3) is applied to each storm the total interception loss is given by

If

E is now redefined by
j= 1

while similarly R is given by

or equation (8) can be written as

( c ) Wetting-up the canopy

From Eq. (6) the interception loss for the period before saturation is
(I - p - p,)Pb - S. Substituting this into Eq. (9) for all n storms,

irkdl =

Jo

For small storms insufficient to saturate the canopy completely, I = (1 -p-p,)P,. ing these (say) m storms, the total interception loss is

Includ-

RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

47

(d'l Evaporation from the trunks

Emulating the Rutter model, where the trunk water balance is conceived as being separate from the canopy water balance, the proportion of the rain which is directed to the stem is remaved from the incident rainfall before the canopy water balance is considered. The stemflow for each storm with rainfall greater than SJp, is described by stemflow = p t P c - S , , S, being the trunk water store, which must be filled before any stemflow is apparent at the base of the trunks. Evaporation from trunks is likely to be small compared with evaporation from the canopy (Rutter and Morton (1977) calculate it to be typically 1 to 5 % of the above-canopy value during rainfall) and it is neglected here. Interception loss from trunks is then only the amount of water which remains on the trunks after stemflow has ceased. If the assumption is made that the interval between storms is sufficiently long to allow all the water in the trunk store to evaporate, then the interception loss from the trunks is given by

when out of the total (n+m) storms there are q storms above the critical rainfall, S,/p,, necessary to fill the trunk store. Equation (1 1) can now be rewritten as

(e) The rainfall necessary to saturate the canopy

Evaporation from partially wet canopies and its description in terms of the MonteithPenman equation has been the subject of recent discussion (Shuttleworth 1976; Monteith 1977). However, Shuttleworth (1978) has demonstrated that the somewhat arbitrary assumption made by Rutter et al. (1971) leads to a theoretically reasonable description of the partially wet canopy. That assumption is that evaporation from the canopy is described by E = (C/S)E,, where E,, is the evaporation which would occur from a totally wet canopy and C is the amount of water on the canopy. This is applied to conditions on the canopy before saturation is reached, with the further assumption that mean evaporation and rainfall rates also apply. The evaporation during this period is then given by E = (Cis). Assuming there is no water dripping from the canopy before saturation, the rate of change of water on the canopy can be described by dC/dt = (1 - p - p , ) R - E , or K / d t = ( I -p-pt)R-(E/S)C, which has the solution

or
The time taken for saturation to occur is therefore
t' =

-(S/E)In{l-(E/R)(l-P-p,)-'}.

Following the assumption that the mean rainfall rate applies, at the point when the canopy reaches saturation the rainfall is given by P& = Rt'; therefore

48

J. H.C . GASH

and Eq. (12) can be rewritten with PA considered as a constant for the period:

4.

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL TO

THETFORD FOREST DATA

(a) Site and instrumentation

Thetford Forest is a pine forest of over 200 km2 situated in East Anglia. Observations were made in a stand of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) planted in 1931 and now thinned to a density of some 800 trees per hectare. Details of the instrumentation have been given previously by Gash and Stewart (1977). Interception loss was determined from the difference between gross rainfall, throughfall and stemflow. Throughfall was measured with a random grid of 24 raingauges which were measured and rearranged within an area 30 m x 15 m every two weeks. Gross rainfall was measured both above the canopy and in an adjacent clearing. Gash and Stewart found good agreement between the two gauges and used the above-canopy gauge in their analysis. That gauge is also used in this analysis. In March 1976 the gauge was changed from a resolution of 0.05 mm per tip to 0.25 mm per tip. Two automatic weather stations (Strangeways 1972) were mounted on a tower above the forest. Measurements of net radiation, temperature, wet bulb depression and windspeed were made every five minutes and recorded on magnetic tape. Readings from the two stations were later averaged to produce a single set of hourly average values. The measurements were made throughout 1975 and 1976; during that period the weather stations were recalibrated four times.

(b) Theforest structure parameters

The canopy capacity, S, is defined as the amount of water present on the canopy in conditions of zero evaporation, when throughfall has ceased. S for the Thetford site has been determined to be 0.8mm (Gash and Morton 1978) with an estimated error of about The free throughfall coefficient,p , was estimated to be 0.32 from an analysis of small storms, or 0.26

RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

49

The theory requires that &' and R should be calculated from those hours when the canopy is saturated; however, in practice, to determine whether or not this condition is satisfied requires the drawing up of an hourly water balance, as in the Rutter model. To maintain the simplicity of the model it is therefore necessary to approximate this condition by selecting a rainfall rate, above which it is considered the canopy will always be saturated. Once the canopy is saturated, the rainfall rate necessary to maintain saturation is E/(l p - p J , typically 0*3mmh-'; if the canopy is completely dry the rainfall necessary to achieve saturation in the hour is P& typically 1.3 mm. As a compromise, the threshold rate of 0.5 mm h-' was chosen as representing saturated conditions. It is accepted that this will include some hours of rainfall when the canopy is only partially wet before saturation and will exclude some hours when the canopy is saturated during light rainfall. The following procedure was therefore adopted : 1. For each four-week period, hours with P, 2 0.5 mm were isolated and the evaporation calculated using the Monteith-Penman equation as in the Rutter model :

1E = (AR,+pc,D/r,)(A+y)-',
where cp is the specific heat of air at constant pressure (J kg-'K-l); E, the evaporation rate (kgm-'s-'); r,, the aerodynamic resistance (sm-'); R,, the net radiation (W m-'); D, the vapour pressure deficit (mb); y, the psychrometric constant (mbK-I); A, the slope of the saturation vapour pressure curve at air temperature (mb K-'); and p, the density of air (kgm-j). The aerodynamic resistance, as in the Rutter model, was calculated from the expression r, = (l/k2u){ln(z-d)/z,)2, with k = 0-41 and u the windspeed at height z(ms-'), and the assumption that d = 0.75h and zo = O*lOh,when h is the vegetation height (m) and z = h + 2 (m). Under the assumption that hours with P, 2 0-5mm represent saturated canopy conditions, these hourly values of E were then averaged over the four-week period to give an estimate of 17. 2. Similarly, for the same hours P, was extracted and, making the same assumption, averaged to give 8. 3. These values were then used to calculate PI; from Eq. (13) for each four-week period, using the following values of the other parameters (Gash and Morton): S = 0.8 mm, p =0.32,~ =~ 0.016. 4. Making the further assumption that there is only one storm per rainday, raindays were divided into those with PG 3 PA and those with P G < Pt. These two sets of daily rainfall amounts were then summed to give
j= 1

1P ,

and

j=1

1P G j .

5. The number of raindays, n, with P, 2 P b was noted. 6. The number of raindays, q, with PG 2 St/pr was noted, and the rainfalls of raindays with P, < St/prwere summed. The procedure provided sufficientinformation for the interception loss to be calculated from Eq. (14).

( d ) Results
The calculated values of E, R and PA for each four-week period are given in Fig. 1. The error bars represent standard deviations of the mean hourly values of I ? and the numbers of.hours data used are also shown.

w;

50

J. H. C. GASH

...
1-

. .
9 .

.
r

. *

...

a"
0

There is no significant correlation between E and R in either 1975 or 1976, the coeffibeing 0.178 and 0.008 respectively. cients of determination, R2, The cumulative totals of observed and estimated interception loss are shown in Fig. 2. The maximum difference between observed and estimated loss is 16mm. The final totals of observed and estimated loss are 245 and 257 mm respectively; the model therefore overestimates the interception loss by 12mm, or 5 % of the observed loss. The calculations were made over four-week periods t o give a better appreciation of the performance of the model and variability of the estimates. There is, however, no reason why a single calculation cannot be made on the data. When calculations are performed for the whole period the inputs t o the model are:
j=n

= Oa19mmh-';

= 1.38mmh-';

j= 1

1 P G j = 822.1mm; 1 P G j = 73.7mm;
j= 1

j=m

and

RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

51

c---1975-----.,-1976

4-week

periods

Figure 2. Cumulative totals of measured (continuous line) and estimated (broken line) interception loss, for 21 four-week periods during 1975 and 1976.

1975

1976

Figure 3. Each block shows from left to right: total rainfall, with measured interception loss in black; estimated interception loss, using the parameters derived for each period (plain); and the estimated interception loss, using the mean parameters derived from the whok data set (hatched).

52
j=nt+n-q

J. H. C.GASH

j= 1

pGj

= 46.5mm;

n, m and q being 132, 161 and 157 respectively. This gives

PA

= 1.35mm.

The interception loss is then made up as shown in Table 1. The rainfall and the observed and estimated interception loss for each period are also shown in Fig. 3, together with the interception loss estimated using the mean parameters derived for the whole period, but applied to each individual period. In both cases a regression of observed on calculated interception loss gave a line whose slope did not differ significantly from unity, and an intercept which did not differ significantly from zero.
TABLE 1. THE COMPONENTS OF THE TOTAL INTERCEPTION
LOSS, CALCULATED FOR THE WHOLE PERIOD OF 84
WEEKS OF AVAILABLE DATA DURING

1975 AND 1976

Component of interception loss Small storms Wetting-up the canopy Evaporation from saturation until rainfall ceases Evaporation after rainfall ceases Evaporation from trunks Total interception loss

Analytical form

Value (mm)

12.5

(~/l~)i (pcj-p~)
I=1

87.4

nS
mtn-,y

105.6
j = 1

qS,+Pt

pa,

2.9 257.3

5.

ERRORANALYSIS

The error in the model prediction due to any variable, X , is estimated as 61 = (ail8X ) d X . If the variables are independent, the resultant errors may then be summed quadratically t o give the total error in the estimate. The percentage errors in the two stemflow terms are large, but the absolute magnitude of evaporation from trunks is, in this case, so small that the errors can be neglected. For the purposes of this analysis the error in the measurement of rainfall is also neglected. The remaining variables are E, S and (1 -p - p J .
(a)

The error in E

The error in E will depend on the accuracy of the measurements, in particular that of wet bulb depression, and also on the validity of the assumptions made in determining r,. These assumptions, which are discussed by Rutter et a/. (1975), take account of atmospheric stability (Thom et al. 1975), and of the effects discussed by Thom (1971, 1972), but essentially estimate the parameters d and zo from empirical relationships. E, the mean evaporation rate, has been calculated under the assumption that the evaporation for hours when P, > 03mm is equivalent to the evaporation for all hours of rainfall onto a saturated canopy. This assumption is obviously an approximation to the truth. However, an independent estimate of E i s available for the same site in 1972 and 1973, from direct measurements of evaporation rate made using the Bowen ratio technique when the canopy was saturated (Stewart 1977). Periods when the available energy was less than 20 W m-' (0.03 mm h -') were omitted from the analysis due to large percentage errors in the measurement technique at low energy levels; but a total of 245 twenty-minute periods gave a mean

RAINFALL INTERCEPTION

53

evaporation rate of 129.1Wm-2, equivalent to 0*19mmh-'. This agreement with the estimate of E reported here suggests that the assumptions made in the derivation of E are not seriouslyin error. Eis relatively insensitiveto changes in the arbitrarily selected threshold of PG 2 0*5mmh-'. Changing the threshold to 0.25 and to I-Ommh-' changed Efrom 0*19mmh-' to 0.21 and 0*17mmh-', respectively. An error of +15% was therefore arbitrarily assigned to E and the consequent error in the interception loss, given by 61 = (aZ/aE)6E, was & 14.9mm, or k6 % of the total loss.
(b) The error in S

The canopy capacity is assumed to have been determined to within & 10% (Gash and Morton). The error due to S, given by 61 = (al/aS)6S, is f9.4 mm, or +4 % of the total loss.

(c) The error in (1 - p - p t )

The difference between the two values derived for p (0.26 and 0-32, Gash and Morton) suggests that the error in this parameter may be relatively large. However, an error of f30% in p , which covers both values, is equivalent to an error of f14% in (1 - p - p t ) and results in an error in the interception loss, given by 61 = {al/a(l -p-p,)}6(1 - p - p t ) , of 8.9 mm, or f 3 % of the total loss. This analysis ignores error due to the assumption of equivalence between rainday and rainfall event. The assumption was made partly for simplicity but also to avoid the need for any subjective assessment of what constitutes a rainfall event. Disregarding this, the error resulting from all the other variables considered is 19.7mm, or 8 % of the total.
AND CONCLUSIONS 6. DISCUSSION

The model described in this paper in effect separates the interception loss resulting from evaporation during rainfall, from that which results from the structure of the canopy. Following some simplifying assumptions, this is accomplished analytically rather than numerically as in the Rutter model, although conceptually the models are similar. The agreement between observation and estimation appears to be sufficiently good, in th,e case studied, to justify the additional assumptions and simplifications which have been made. Further tests will, however, be required before these assumptions can be considered generally justifiable. As it has been applied here, the model suffers from the same disadvantage as the Rutter model, in that it requires an input of hourly meteorological data. Although rainfall and rainfall duration are measured at climatological and agrometeorological stations in many areas, the hourly values of the meteorological parameters required to calculate the evaporation are rarely measured above forests, except in research projects. There are some sixty meteorological stations in the United Kingdom where hourly observations are made, but these are generally associated with aviation or marine activities and therefore tend to be at considerable distances, and different altitudes, from the major areas of forest. These are mainly inland, upland regions. In any practical application of the model it will therefore be necessary to use empirical values of at least E and possibly R . Little is known about the seasonal, areal or altitudinal variation of A!?, although some preliminary information can be obtained from Fig. 1, where a seasonal variation is indicated. However, it should be noted that in an analysis of a similar parameter for a site in the south of England during 1966 and 1967, Rutter and Morton (1977) found no such marked seasonal trend, which may therefore be associated with the anomalous meteorological

54

J. H.C.GASH

conditions during the summers of 1975 and 1976. A preliminary study of evaporation from an upland forest in central Wales has given a value for E of 0.12 mm h-', which compares with the value of 0.19mmh-1 obtained for Thetford Forest. These two sites represent extremes of climate likely to be found in forested areas of Great Britain; so if this value for central Wales is correct, it is likely that the variation in I? may be sufficiently small for adequately accurate estimates of evaporation to be made, with little regard for variation in E. The sensitivity of the interception loss to E will vary with rainfall climate, being more sensitive in regions of long rainfall duration. However, in the case studied, Thetford Forest, to obtain an accuracy of f 15 % in interception loss (equivalent to approximately 5 % in net ? to be estimated rainfall) would, with the estimated accuracy in the other variables, require l to an accuracy of 2 37 %. This relative insensitivity to E is illustrated in Fig. 3, where estimates made using the values of E derived for each individual period can be compared with those derived using fixed means for the whole period. The consequent possibility of using empirical estimates of E to estimate interception loss solely from rainfall data, suggests that the problem of estimating the evaporation of rainfall intercepted by forests may have a relatively simple solution. Thom and Oliver (1977) have suggested that total regional evaporation (interception plus transpiration) may be calculated from daily measurements made at climatological and agrometeorological stations, using a version of the Penman equation, modified by the introduction of two additional factors. The first is related to the surface roughness of the vegetation, while the second represents the combined effect of the average surface resistance of the vegetation and the duration of canopy wetness. In practice this latter parameter requires an independent estimate of the interception loss (Gash 1978), which, it was suggested, might be obtained from the extrapolation of previous catchment analyses or measurements of interception loss. However, the model presented here allows, in the case of forests, the attractive possibility of obtaining this required estimate of rainfall interception over the same period and for the same site as those being used to calculate the transpiration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 am indebted to N. F. Cowell and C. R. Lloyd for their help in the collection and analysis of the Thetford data and to W. J. Shuttleworth for his constructive criticism at all stages in the preparation of this paper. Thanks are also due to Professor P. G. Jarvis, Professor A. J. Rutter, J. B. Stewart and A. S . Thom for their helpful comments during the final stages of preparation and to referees for their helpful criticism of the first draft of this paper. The work described in this paper was carried out with funds provided by the Department of the Environment under contract number DGR 480135.

REFERENCE
Blake, G. J. Gash, J. H. C. 1975 1978 1978 1977 The interception process. In Prediction in catchment hydrology, Eds. T. G. Chapman and F. X. Dunin, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 59-81. Comment on the paper by A. S. Thom and H. R. Oliver, On Penman's equation for estimating regional evaporation, Quart. J. R . Met. SOC.,104,532-533. An application of the Rutter model to the estimation of the interception loss from Thetford Forest, J. Hydrol., 38,
49-58.

Gash, J. H. C. and Morton, A. J.

Gash, J. H. C. and Stewart, J. B.

The evaporation from Thetford Forest during 1975, Ibid., 35, 385-396.

RAINFALL INTERCEPTION
Helvey, J. D. and Patric, J. H. Horton, R. E. Jackson, I. J. Leyton, L., Reynolds, E. R. C. and Thompson, F. B. Monteith, J. L. Rutter, A. J. Rutter, A. J., Kershaw, K. A., Robins, P. C. and Morton, A. J. Rutter, A. J. and Morton, A. J. Rutter, A. J., Morton, A. J. and Robins, P. C. Shuttleworth, W. J.
1965 1919 I975 1967 1977 I975 1971 1977 1975

55

I976 1978

Stewart, J. B. Strangeways, I. C. Thom, A. S.

1977 1972 1971 I972

Thom, A. S.and Oliver, H. R. Thom, A. S.,Stewart, J. B., Oliver, H. R. and Gash, J. H. C. Zinke, P. J.

I977 1975 1967

Canopy and litter interception of rainfall by hardwoods of eastern United States, Water Resour. Res., 1, 193-206. Rainfall interception. Mon. Weath. Rev., 47, 603-623. Relationships between rainfall parameters and interception by tropical forest, J. Hydrol., 24, 215-238. Rainfall interception in forest and moorland, Int. Symp on Forest Hydrology, Eds. W. E. Sopper and H. W. Lull, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 163-1 78. Resistance of a partially wet canopy: whose equation fails?, Boundary Layer Met., 12, 379-383. Chapter 4. The hydrological cycle in vegetation. In Vegetation and rhe atmosphere Vol. I, Ed. J. L. Monteith, Academic Press, London, I 11-1 54. A predictive model of rainfall interception in forests. I: Derivation of the model from observations in a plantation of Corsican Pine, Agr. Met., 9, 367-384. A predictive model of rainfall interception in forests. 111: Sensitivity of the model to stand parameters and meteorological variables, J. Appl. Ecol., 14, 567-588. A predictive model of rainfall interception in forests. 11: Generalization of the model and comparison with observations in some coniferous and hardwood stands, Ibid., 12, 367-380. Experimental evidence for the failure of the PenmanMonteith equation in partially wet conditions, Boundary Layer Met., 8, 81-99. A simplified one-dimensional theoretical description of the vegetation-atmosphere interaction, Ibid., 14, 3-27. Evaporation from the wet canopy of a pine forest, Water Resour. Res., 13, 915-921. Automatic weather stations for network operation, Weather, 27, 403408. Momentumabsorption by vegetation, Quarr.J. R. Met. SOC., 97,414-428. Momentum, mass and heat exchange of vegetation, Ibid., 98, 124-134. On Penmans equation for estimating regional evaporation, Ibid., 103, 345-357. Comparison of aerodynamic and energy budget estimates of fluxes over a pine forest, Zbid., 101, 93-105. Forest interception studies in the United States, International Symposium on Forest Hydrology, Eds. W. E. Sopper and H. W. Lull, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 137-161.