Articles | Volume 16, issue 8
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2605–2616, 2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2605-2012

Special issue: Water, climate, and vegetation: ecohydrology in a changing...

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2605–2616, 2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2605-2012

Research article 10 Aug 2012

Research article | 10 Aug 2012

Partitioning of evaporation into transpiration, soil evaporation and interception: a comparison between isotope measurements and a HYDRUS-1D model

S. J. Sutanto1,3,*, J. Wenninger1,2, A. M. J. Coenders-Gerrits2, and S. Uhlenbrook1,2 S. J. Sutanto et al.
  • 1UNESCO-IHE, Department of Water Engineering, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA, Delft, The Netherlands
  • 2Delft University of Technology, Water Resources Section, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands
  • 3Research Center for Water Resources, Ministry of Public Works, Jl. Ir. H. Djuanda 193, Bandung 40135, Indonesia
  • *now at: Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht (IMAU), University of Utrecht, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract. Knowledge of the water fluxes within the soil-vegetation-atmosphere system is crucial to improve water use efficiency in irrigated land. Many studies have tried to quantify these fluxes, but they encountered difficulties in quantifying the relative contribution of evaporation and transpiration. In this study, we compared three different methods to estimate evaporation fluxes during simulated summer conditions in a grass-covered lysimeter in the laboratory. Only two of these methods can be used to partition total evaporation into transpiration, soil evaporation and interception. A water balance calculation (whereby rainfall, soil moisture and percolation were measured) was used for comparison as a benchmark. A HYDRUS-1D model and isotope measurements were used for the partitioning of total evaporation. The isotope mass balance method partitions total evaporation of 3.4 mm d−1 into 0.4 mm d−1 for soil evaporation, 0.3 mm d−1 for interception and 2.6 mm d−1 for transpiration, while the HYDRUS-1D partitions total evaporation of 3.7 mm d−1 into 1 mm d−1 for soil evaporation, 0.3 mm d−1 for interception and 2.3 mm d−1 for transpiration. From the comparison, we concluded that the isotope mass balance is better for low temporal resolution analysis than the HYDRUS-1D. On the other hand, HYDRUS-1D is better for high temporal resolution analysis than the isotope mass balance.

Please read the corrigendum first before accessing the article.
Download

The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.