ArticleInternational journal of biometeorology2010
Water fluxes within beech stands in complex terrain.
Article in International journal of biometeorology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A single tree model to consistently simulate cooling, shading, and pollution uptake of urban trees.International journal of biometeorology · 2021Article
- Attributing functions to ectomycorrhizal fungal identities in assemblages for nitrogen acquisition under stress.The ISME journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the water balances of two beech stands (Fagus sylvatica L.) on opposite slopes (NE, SW) of a narrow valley near Tuttlingen in the southern Swabian Jura, a low mountain range in Southwest Germany. Our analysis combines results from continuous measurements of forest meteorological variables significant to the forest water balance, stand transpiration (ST) estimates from sap flow measurements, and model simulations of microclimate and water fluxes. Two different forest hydrological models (DNDC and BROOK90) were tested for their suitability to represent the particular sites. The investigation covers the years 2001-2007. Central aims were (1) to evaluate meteorological simulations of variables below the forest canopy, (2) to evaluate ST, (3) to quantify annual water fluxes for both beech stands using the evaluated hydrological models, and (4) to analyse the model simulations with regard to assumptions inherent in the respective model. Overall, both models were very well able to reproduce the observed dynamics of the soil water content in the uppermost 30 cm. However, the degree of fit depended on the year and season. The comparison of experimentally determined ST within the beech stand on the NE-slope during the growing season of 2007 with simulated transpiration did not yield a reliable statistical relationship. The simulation of water fluxes for the beech stand on the NE- and SW-slopes showed similar results for vegetation-related fluxes with both models, but different with respect to runoff and percolation flows. Overall, the higher evaporation demand on the warmer SW-slope did not lead to a significantly increased drought stress for the vegetation but was reflected mainly in decreased water loss from the system. This finding is discussed with regard to potential climate change and its impact on beech growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19629535What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.