Canopy interception in UBCWM
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:55 pm
Hi James or anyone.
My question is whether the UBCWM is any good for representing canopy interception on snow processes. I have defined two stant types in my HRU's and am trying to capture differences in interception using TFSNOW at 0.75 and on at 0.50 - thinking this is a way to represent a juvenile and mature stand but, as it turns out, it has absolutely no impact on the results. Why is this and how can I better represent differences in snow interception in open and mature forest stands. - or is it time to move on to HVB-EC?
Thanks
Kim
:VegetationParameterList
:Parameters, TFRAIN, TFSNOW, MAX_INTERCEPT_RATE, RAIN_ICEPT_FACT, SNOW_ICEPT_FACT
:Units, frac, frac, mm/d, frac, frac
VG_FST40MINUS,0.90, 0.75, 5, 0.1, 0.25
VG_FST40PLUS, 0.88, 0.50, 10, 0.12, 0.5
VG_BURN, 1.0, 0.90, 1, 0.00, 0.10
VG_CLEAR, 0.98, 0.98, 1, 0.02, 0.02
VG_LAKE, 1.0, 1.0, 0, 0.00, 0.00
VG_SHRUB, 0.95, 0.90, 2, 0.05, 0.10
:EndVegetationParameterList
My question is whether the UBCWM is any good for representing canopy interception on snow processes. I have defined two stant types in my HRU's and am trying to capture differences in interception using TFSNOW at 0.75 and on at 0.50 - thinking this is a way to represent a juvenile and mature stand but, as it turns out, it has absolutely no impact on the results. Why is this and how can I better represent differences in snow interception in open and mature forest stands. - or is it time to move on to HVB-EC?
Thanks
Kim
:VegetationParameterList
:Parameters, TFRAIN, TFSNOW, MAX_INTERCEPT_RATE, RAIN_ICEPT_FACT, SNOW_ICEPT_FACT
:Units, frac, frac, mm/d, frac, frac
VG_FST40MINUS,0.90, 0.75, 5, 0.1, 0.25
VG_FST40PLUS, 0.88, 0.50, 10, 0.12, 0.5
VG_BURN, 1.0, 0.90, 1, 0.00, 0.10
VG_CLEAR, 0.98, 0.98, 1, 0.02, 0.02
VG_LAKE, 1.0, 1.0, 0, 0.00, 0.00
VG_SHRUB, 0.95, 0.90, 2, 0.05, 0.10
:EndVegetationParameterList