Interception losses in three non-native Hawaiian forest stands
Interception losses in stands of non-native trees in Hawaiian forests and their potential negative impacts on fresh water availability are poorly understood. In this study, a canopy water balance analysis was conducted to estimate interception losses using measurements of rainfall (RF), throughfall (TF), and stemflow (SF) at three locations, each dominated by one or more of the following non-native tree species: Psidium cattleianum Sabine (Strawberry guava), Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (Christmas berry), Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels (Java plum), and Coffea arabica L. (Coffee). Mean TF expressed as percentage of total RF was the lowest (43.3%) under a monotypic stand of P. cattleianum and the highest (56.5%) under mixture of S. terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum, and S. cumini. Observed SF was highest (33.9%) under P. cattleianum and lowest (3.6%) under a mixture of S. terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum, and S. cumini. The relatively high SF under P. cattleianum can be attributed to its smooth bark, stem density, and steep branching. The mean observed canopy interception varied between 23% under P. cattleianum and 45% at the site dominated by C. arabica. Mean direct TF coefficients from individual events at each location ranged from a low of 0.36 under the canopy dominated by C. arabica to a high of 0.51 under the canopy dominated by S. terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum, and S. cumini. In contrast, the mean SF partitioning coefficients from individual storm events at each location ranged from a low of 0.05 under the canopy dominated by S. terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum, and S. cumini to a high of 0.37 under P. cattleianum. Mean canopy storage capacity was highest (1.90) at the site dominated by S. terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum, and S. cumini whereas trunk storage capacity was highest (0.54) under the P. cattleianum. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Safeeq, M., & Fares, A. (2014). Interception losses in three non-native Hawaiian forest stands. Hydrological Processes, 28, 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9557