IWA Publishing

Different shrub species partition rainfall into TF, SF, and interception differently, resulting in different amounts of available rainwater. The TF percentage of S. gordejevii (75.3%) was the highest, followed by H. fruticosum (71.2%) and C. microphylla (64.2%); while the SF percentage of C. microphylla (11.0%) was higher than that of H. fruticosum (6.3%) and S. gordejevii (5.3%); and the interception percentage of C. microphylla (24.8%) was higher than that of H. fruticosum (22.5%) and S. gordejevii (19.4%). These results indicate that C. microphylla exhibits a higher interception and a higher SF than H. fruticosum or S. gordejevii. Large variations in rainfall partitioning patterns can be found between species in different areas, with SF percentages ranging from 2.2 to 43.3% (Table 5). The difference in rainfall partitioning of shrub species may be attributed to the differences in morphological characteristics of the plant species. For example, the multiple-stems, umbrella-shaped canopy, smooth stems, and numerous ovate leaves of C. microphylla enable it to better intercept rainwater and thus generate greater SF production. H. fruticosum, on the other hand, is a shrub with rough stems and thin leaves, thus its canopy reduces interception and its branches are capable of absorbing SF. The slender and loose stems and leptophyllous leaves of S. gordejevii are unfavorable for rainfall interception but enhance net precipitation.

Table 5

Gross rainfall (Pg) partitioning into TF, SF and interception (I) in different shrub species

No.	Location	Shrub species	Pg (mm)	TF (%)	SF (%)	I (%)	References
1	USA	Prosopis glandulosa	230	62.8	5.4	31.8	Martinez-Meza & Whitford (1996)
1	USA	Flourensia cernua	230	55.8	10.6	34.6	Martinez-Meza & Whitford (1996)
2	USA	Larrea tridentata	235	64.7	16.8	18.5	Whitford et al. (1997)
3	Spain	Rosmarinus officinalis	290	31.5	43.3	25.2	Serrato & Diaz (1998)
		Thymus vulgaris	290	37.2	29.8	33
		Juniperus oxycedrus	232	44.5	18.7	36.5
4	Spain	Anthyllis cytisoides	300	40	20	40	Domingo et al. (1998)
4	Spain	Retama sphaerocarpa	300	72	7	21	Domingo et al. (1998)
5	China	Tamarix ramosissima	263	–	2.2	–	Li et al. (2008)
		Caragana korshinskii	263	–	3.7	–
		Reaumuria soongorica	263	–	7.2	–
6	China	Salix psammophila	395	–	7.6	–	Yang et al. (2008)
6	China	Artemisia sphaerocephala	395	–	2.7	–	Yang et al. (2008)
7	China	Caragana korshinskii	427	–	12.3	–	Jian et al. (2014)
7	China	Hippophae rhamnoides	427	–	8.4	–	Jian et al. (2014)
8	China	Caragana korshinskii	413	74.3	9	16.7	Zhang et al. (2015)
8	China	Artemisia ordosica	413	74.8	2.9	22.3	Zhang et al. (2015)
9	China	Caragana microphylla	238	64.2	11	24.8	In this study
		Hedysarum fruticosum	238	71.2	6.3	22.5
		Salix gordejevii	238	75.3	5.3	19.4

No.	Location	Shrub species	Pg (mm)	TF (%)	SF (%)	I (%)	References
1	USA	Prosopis glandulosa	230	62.8	5.4	31.8	Martinez-Meza & Whitford (1996)
1	USA	Flourensia cernua	230	55.8	10.6	34.6	Martinez-Meza & Whitford (1996)
2	USA	Larrea tridentata	235	64.7	16.8	18.5	Whitford et al. (1997)
3	Spain	Rosmarinus officinalis	290	31.5	43.3	25.2	Serrato & Diaz (1998)
		Thymus vulgaris	290	37.2	29.8	33
		Juniperus oxycedrus	232	44.5	18.7	36.5
4	Spain	Anthyllis cytisoides	300	40	20	40	Domingo et al. (1998)
4	Spain	Retama sphaerocarpa	300	72	7	21	Domingo et al. (1998)
5	China	Tamarix ramosissima	263	–	2.2	–	Li et al. (2008)
		Caragana korshinskii	263	–	3.7	–
		Reaumuria soongorica	263	–	7.2	–
6	China	Salix psammophila	395	–	7.6	–	Yang et al. (2008)
6	China	Artemisia sphaerocephala	395	–	2.7	–	Yang et al. (2008)
7	China	Caragana korshinskii	427	–	12.3	–	Jian et al. (2014)
7	China	Hippophae rhamnoides	427	–	8.4	–	Jian et al. (2014)
8	China	Caragana korshinskii	413	74.3	9	16.7	Zhang et al. (2015)
8	China	Artemisia ordosica	413	74.8	2.9	22.3	Zhang et al. (2015)
9	China	Caragana microphylla	238	64.2	11	24.8	In this study
		Hedysarum fruticosum	238	71.2	6.3	22.5
		Salix gordejevii	238	75.3	5.3	19.4

–: not available.

View Large

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only