We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Based on field measurements made at dry (Auwahi) and wet (Waikamoi) cloud forest sites on the island of Maui, a preliminary analysis of fog gage measurements and wet-canopy water balance estimates was made. Accounting for effects of wind-blown rainfall and varying wind direction, estimates of cloud water flux were derived based on fog gage observations. Throughfall (TF) measurements, incident rainfall estimates, and calculated amounts of wet-canopy evaporation were used to estimate event totals of cloud water interception (CWI) by the vegetation at each site. Measured TF was about 37% of incident rainfall at Auwahi, and 119% at Waikamoi. At both sites TF was dominated by rainfall, but was significantly influenced by fog at Waikamoi only. Fog contributed at an average frequency of once every two days at Auwahi and about twice in three days at Waikamoi. Derived CWI totals were equivalent to 151 mm year–1 at Auwahi and 1073 mm year–1 at Waikamoi. At Auwahi, however, the majority of intercepted water was re-evaporated from the wet vegetation, and never reached the ground. Total CWI was related to fog screen catch and cloud water flux at Waikamoi, but not at Auwahi.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.