Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47–48 (2012) 122–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pce

Measuring forest floor and canopy interception in a savannah ecosystem

C.T. Tsiko a,⇑, H. Makurira a, A.M.J. Gerrits b, H.H.G. Savenije b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Water Resources Section, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Interception is one of the most underestimated processes of the hydrological cycle. However, it amounts
Available online 2 July 2011 to a substantial part of the terrestrial evaporation and forms a direct feedback of moisture to the atmo-
sphere which is important to sustain continental rainfall. Most investigations on interception focus on
Keywords: canopy interception only, whereas the interception by the surface and forest floor may be of same order
Forest floor interception of magnitude. Moreover there is a regional bias. Most research has been carried out in Europe and Amer-
Interception storage capacity ica and little is known about interception in Africa. This paper presents a study on forest floor and canopy
Canopy interception
interception in a savannah ecosystem. The study deals with both interception storage capacity of differ-
Evaporation
ent vegetation types and the related moisture fluxes. The interception storage capacity of Msasa leaf litter
and of Thatching grass is 1.8 mm and 1.5 mm respectively. This water storage capacity is dependent on
storm intensity, with high intensity storms resulting in smaller storage capacity than less intensive
storms. Canopy interception for the study period averaged 25% of the total rainfall, which is comparable
with other studies. More importantly, the study revealed that combining canopy and forest floor inter-
ception yields a total interception flux amounting to 37% of the rainfall, or close to 50% of the total evap-
oration. This is a significant amount which implies that interception of both canopy and forest floor
should be included in hydrological modelling and that interception is relevant for water management.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction reducing soil erosion because it lessens the raindrop impact on

In vegetated landscapes, interception is the amount of rainfall
which is temporarily stored on a canopy or forest floor and evapo-
rated shortly after or during a rainfall event (Savenije, 2004). Inter-
ception is a significant process that can amount to 10–50% of the
precipitation (Klaassen et al., 1998). Being the first process in the
chain from rainfall to runoff, it influences all hydrological pro-
cesses including: infiltration, recharge, sub-surface runoff, flood
generation and moisture recycling. Often, interception is not con-
sidered an important process for flood generation, but even here
interception influences antecedent soil moisture conditions which
are important for the generation of floods (Roberts and Klingeman,
1970).
Interception is also an important process in moisture recycling
which supports continental rainfall. According to Eltahir and Brass
(1994) and Savenije (1995), rainfall in the Sahel relies to a large ex-
tent on interception. Interception retains the water before it can
continue its path in the water cycle and it allows for a direct feed-
back loop to the atmosphere. Shuttleworth (1993) observed that
half the amount of evaporation from interception occurs during
the storm itself providing instant moisture feedback. According
to Edwards et al. (1983) interception is also a major factor in
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +263 914 216 916; fax: +263 912 995 742.
E-mail address: tatendatsiko@cooltoad.com (C.T. Tsiko).
the soil surface. This has an indirect effect on the hydrological cy-
cle, in that, by conserving surface soil, infiltration is maintained.
Even though interception is an important part of the hydrolog-
ical cycle, being the first process to influence the distribution of
rainfall on the earth’s surface, it is often disregarded or underesti-
mated in hydrological models (De Groen and Savenije, 2006) Mod-
els that consider interception take it as a minor flux and either
combine it with evaporation and transpiration or take it as a fixed
percentage of rainfall (Savenije, 2004).
Disregarding or lumping interception with other processes
introduces errors in hydrological modelling. Penman (1963) and
Leyton and Carlisle (1959) suggested that evaporation of inter-
cepted precipitation merely replaced transpiration and that inter-
ception does not need to be considered as an additional ‘loss’
separate from transpiration. Savenije (2004) argues that combining
interception with transpiration is a conceptual mistake, because
interception and transpiration are different evaporation processes
and have different time scales. The time scale of interception is
short, generally ending within a period of one day after rainfall
(De Groen and Savenije, 2006), while transpiration has a much
longer time scale varying between weeks and months.
In this paper, interception is considered as occurring at two lev-
els: in the canopy and on the forest floor. Canopy interception is
the amount of rainfall which is stored and evaporated from the fo-
liage above the ground (Pidwirny, 2006). Forest floor interception

1474-7065/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.06.009
 C.T. Tsiko et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47–48 (2012) 122–127
is the part of the net precipitation that is temporarily stored in the
top layer of the forest floor and evaporated within a few hours or
days during and after the rainfall event. The forest floor can consist
of bare soil, short vegetation, grass or leaf litter (Gerrits et al.,
2007).
Canopy interception has been investigated in many parts of the
world, but forest floor interception has received little attention
although it is an important mechanism that precedes infiltration
or runoff (Kiss et al., 2005; Gerrits et al., 2007). This is mainly be-
cause of the difficulty of carrying out on-site observations (for in-
stance, Putuhena and Cordery, 1996; Schaap and Bouten, 1997;
Tobon-Marin et al., 2000). Gerrits et al. (2010) found forest floor
interception values of 20% of throughfall in a Beech forest in Lux-
embourg. Further by combining forest floor and canopy intercep-
tion, Gerrits et al. (2010) concluded that in winter interception
was 24% and as much as 40% in summer. It is important to also
investigate this in a savannah ecosystem so that comparisons can
be made with results from temperate climates.
This paper provides information on the amount of canopy and
forest floor interception measured at tree scale for one rainfall sea-
son under semi-arid conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition,
water storage capacities of different forest floors are also
investigated.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The study was carried out in the upper Manyame catchment at
Belvedere Meteorological Station and Kutsaga Research station
(17°550 S 31°80 E) in Harare, Zimbabwe (Fig. 1). Harare is character-
ised by a summer rainy season which lasts from mid-November to
March. This is followed by a cold dry season from April to July and
a hot dry season from August to mid-November. The mean rainfall
is 825 mm/year and the mean daily temperature ranges between
7 °C and 20 °C during winter and 13 °C and 28° day in summer.
The altitude is 1479 m above sea level. The rainfall in Zimbabwe
is strongly related to the seasonal fluctuations of the Inter Tropical
Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Convection accounts for about 90% of the
Zimbabwean rainfall, although not all of this is related to the ITCZ
(Torrance, 1981). Apart from the ITCZ, Indian Ocean cyclones also
Fig. 1. Location of Zimbabwe showing Belvedere and Kutsaga stations in Harare.
123
influence Zimbabwean rainfall. The cyclone season is usually from
December to April.
2.2. Description of the canopy and forest floor
The research focused on interception by grass and leaf litter and
is analysed by the use of field experiments. The study has been car-
ried out at tree and plot level. A 60 year old Msasa (brachystegia
spiciformis) tree has been subjected to canopy interception mea-
surements. The Msasa is a seasonal broadleaf tree with annual cy-
cle of leaf-on, leaf-off periods. The tree under study has a height of
6 m and an average canopy cover diameter of 10 m. The tree has
small and broad leaves about 4–6 cm long and 2.5–4.5 cm wide.
The upper surface of the leaf has a smooth texture and the lower
surface has a leathery texture.
Msasa tree leaf litter and ‘‘dead’’ Thatching grass (Hyparrhenia
filipendula) are used for the forest floor interception experiments.
This litter is from naturally occurring vegetation commonly found
in Harare. The Msasa litter consist of leaves and pods that are par-
tially decomposed. The Thatching grass is perennial and grows up
to 2 m tall but in the study dead dry grass was used in order to ex-
clude the effect of transpiration. The grass flowers between
November and April (Gibbs-Russell, 1990).
We filled the basins with the top layer of the forest floor. Hence
the fresh leaves and partly decomposed leaves (i.e., L & F layer
according to classification system of Hoover and Lunt, 1952). Since
the amount and composition of litter is highly variable in this eco-
system and it is not unusual to find patches of bare soil, a represen-
tative layer thickness of only those locations which are covered
with leaves was selected. A layer thickness of 5 cm Msasa leaves
and 7 cm Thatching grass was taken.
2.3. Data collection
Data has been collected for one rainfall season starting from
mid-November 2007 to March 2008. Canopy interception for the
Msasa tree has been computed as the difference between gross
precipitation and net precipitation. Gross precipitation has been
measured using a manual rainfall collector under open sky. Net
precipitation has been measured using a manual rainfall collector
installed under the Msasa tree. It must however, be noted that
throughfall varies spatially and in future for improved accuracy it
124 C.T. Tsiko et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47–48 (2012) 122–127

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic of the Forest Floor Interception device with Ei the evaporation from interception, El the evaporation from the lower basin and Su and Sl the storage in
respectively the lower and upper and lower basin. (b) Top view of the FFI device with Msasa leaf litter in the upper basin.

is recommended to use a network of rainfall collectors and gutters
placed under the canopy (e.g. Caryle and Moses, 2004) to obtain
more representative data.
A Forest Floor Interception device is used to measure the forest
floor interception (after Gerrits et al., 2007). The device consists of
two galvanized steel basins, mounted above each other which are
weighed accurately with 2 sets of 3 strain gauge sensors (Fig. 2).
The upper basin which has a permeable bottom of chicken mesh
wire is covered with geotextile and filled Msasa tree leaf litter/
Thatching grass. During a rainfall event, the weight of the upper
basin increases and as soon as the litter or grass is saturated water
drains into the lower basin. The weight of the lower basin also in-
creases as a result. In this lower basin a valve is installed, which
empties three times every day for fifteen minutes to avoid overtop-
ping and evaporation from the lower basin as much as possible.
The space between the supporting structure and the galvanised
steel basins is also minimised using wooden boards to avoid evap-
oration by turbulent wind fluxes. After a rainfall event the weight
increase in the basins is measured. Recordings from the sensors are
made to a data logger which records at a five-minute time interval.
In addition to the weight; temperature is measured by two tem-
perature sensors and saved on the data logger every five minutes.
A dummy sensor is installed in order to establish the relationship
between temperature and sensor output.
Evaporation from the forest floor is determined by calculating
the water balance of the upper and lower basin. Evaporation from
interception is computed as net precipitation minus the discharged
water from the valve, minus the change in weight of the two
basins:
 
dSu dSl
Ei ¼ Pnet  þ  Rv alv e
dt dt
lower and upper and lower basin(mm) and Rvalve the drainage from
the valve (mm/day).
Two experimental sites were selected for the forest floor sam-
pling plots. At Belvedere the device is placed under a tree to receive
throughfall. It is filled with a 5 cm thick layer of Msasa tree leaf lit-
ter. A manual rainfall collector is installed next to the device to
measure the throughfall. At Kutsaga the device is set up under free
sky and filled with a 5 cm thick layer of Msasa tree leaves. The
amount of rainfall received is also determined using a manual rain-
fall collector installed near the device. Daily evaporation measure-
ments are obtained from Standard Class A evaporation pans at both
sites. Daily series of humidity, temperature and wind speed data
are obtained using a psycrometer, thermometer and cup anemom-
eter respectively from both stations. In February 2008, the device
at Kutsaga station was relocated to Belvedere due to power supply
problems and the Msasa tree leaf litter for that basin was replaced
with a 7 cm thick layer of Thatching grass. In Table 1 an overview
of the instruments per site is given.
Sprinkler experiments have been carried out to measure the
water storage capacity of the Msasa tree leaf litter and the Thatching
grass. The equipment used for the experiment comprised of a reser-
voir mounted on a ladder to increase water pressure. The reservoir
has been calibrated and filled with a known volume of water. A gar-
den hose connects the reservoir to a shower head from which water
is applied to the upper basin. Each test starts with dry forest floor.
After each test run new forest floor was placed in the upper basin
since antecedent moisture conditions influence interception.
3. Results and discussion
ð1Þ 3.1. Canopy Interception

where Ei is the evaporation from interception (mm/day), Pnet the net The amount of gross rainfall received at Belvedere and Kutsaga
precipitation (mm/day), Su and Sl the storage in respectively the stations from November 2007 to March 2008 was 1209 and

Table 1
Litter type and instruments used in the field investigations at Belvedere and Kutsaga stations.

Station
Belvedere Plot A 14-11-07 to 01-04-08
Msasa leaves under canopy
Gross rainfall Manual rainfall collector (open sky)
Net rainfall Manual rainfall collector
Forest floor interception Forest floor interception device
Litter thickness 5 cm
Meteorology (Campbell Scientific) Wind Cup Anemometer, Thermometer,
Speed, Temperature, Humidity Psychrometer
Open water evaporation Class A-pan
Kutsaga 14-11-07 to 30-01-08
Msasa leaves under open sky
Manual rainfall collector
NA
Forest floor interception device
5 cm
Cup Anemometer, Thermometer,
Psychrometer
Class A-pan
Belvedere Plot B 21-02-08 to 01-04-08
Thatching grass under open sky
Manual rainfall collector
NA
Forest floor interception device
7 cm
Cup Anemometer, Thermometer,
Psychrometer
Class A-pan
 C.T. Tsiko et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47–48 (2012) 122–127 125

Fig. 3. Monthly gross rainfall, net rainfall and canopy interception distribution at Belvedere station showing percentages of each component.

657 mm respectively. 79 rain days were recorded for Belvedere
station and 71 rain days for Kutsaga during this period.
Belvedere station received more than the mean rainfall
(825 mm/a) of Harare whilst Kutsaga station received less than
the mean annual rainfall. Thus the season was above normal at Bel-
vedere station.
Canopy interception is computed as the difference between the
gross and net rainfall. The month of December had the highest
absolute value of canopy interception (131 mm) followed by Janu-
ary with a comparatively lower value (84 mm). Fig. 3 shows the
monthly gross rainfall, net rainfall and canopy interception distri-
bution at Belvedere station.
Throughfall is just measured with one single rain gauge and
therefore might not be representative for plot throughfall; how-
ever, the percentage canopy interception with respect to rainfall
is comparable to literature. Pidwirny (2006) suggested a range of
20–30% canopy interception for deciduous trees. However these
studies were carried out in temperate regions. Coniferous trees
have a higher range of 25–35%. The canopy interception obtained
in this study period was 25% of gross rainfall. This is similar to
the result found by Gerrits et al. (2010) who obtained an average
of 25% canopy interception during leaf-on periods in summer.
However, during winter Gerrits et al. (2010) found only 5% canopy
900
Accum. Pnet
800
Accum. (Su+Sl)
700
Accum. Eint
600
500
(mm)
interception. In this study, the seasonal variation of interception
was not accounted for since the study was carried out in one rain
season. The rain season starts in November and thus an increase in
canopy cover can be expected in the beginning of the rain season.
However, our results do not show higher interception storage in
the beginning of the rain season.
3.2. Forest floor Interception
Msasa leaf litter interception at Belvedere station between 14
November 2007 and 31 January 2008 was 18% of net precipitation
(Fig. 4). At Kutsaga, the Msasa leaf litter interception was 19% of
gross rainfall (Fig. 5). It must be emphasised that even though
the two sites are only 10 km apart, the rainfall received was sub-
stantially different. The amount of rainfall received at Belvedere
and Kutsaga for the season was 1209 mm and 658 mm
respectively.
The forest floor interception results for Belvedere are compara-
ble to those of Kutsaga station. In February, the forest floor inter-
ception device at Kutsaga station was relocated to Belvedere due
to power supply problems and the Msasa leaf litter for the basin
was replaced with ‘dead’ Thatching grass. Dead grass was used in
order to exclude transpiration from the measurements. However,
most of the data for February was lost due to failure of the data log-
ger. Fig. 6 makes a comparison of the evaporation from intercep-
tion between the Msasa leaf litter and Thatching grass from 19
February to 31 March 2008.
Interception by Thatching grass was 26% of gross rainfall com-
pared to 20% of net rainfall for the Msasa leaf litter. This was prob-
ably due to the fact that the grass was under open sky and received
more radiation and was exposed more to the effect of wind than

the leaf litter as it was located under a tree. Also, it was observed
400
during sprinkler tests carried out that the dry grass dried out faster
300 than the leaf litter layer since it is less closely packed than the litter
200
allowing wind to flow through it. The nature of the intercepting
material thus influences interception.
100
18%
0 3.3. Canopy and forest floor interception
12 07

23 8

30 8

8
08

16 8
21 -07

28 -07

5- 7

19 -07

26 -07

07

-0

-0

-0
0
0

1-

1-
1-

2-
12

-1

-1

-1
1

Canopy and forest floor interception measurements for the per-

2-

9-
-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1
14

iod 14 November 2007 to 8 January 2008 were 23% and 14%

Date
respectively as shown in Fig. 7. The total interception for this per-
Fig. 4. Accumulated forest floor interception by Msasa leaf litter at Belvedere iod was 37%. Interception is thus a significant process which
station (also shown as a percentage of net precipitation). should not be overlooked.
126 C.T. Tsiko et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47–48 (2012) 122–127

900 900
Accum. Pgross Accum. Pgross
800 800
Accum. (Su + Sl)
Accum. Pnet
700 Accum. Eint 700
Accum. Canopy
600
600 Interception
Accum. FF Interception
500
(mm)

500

(mm)
400
400
300
300
200

100 200
19%
0 100
12 -07

23 8

30 8

8
08

16 8
21 -07

28 -07

5- 7

19 07

26 -07

07

-0

-0

-0
0
0
0

1-

1-
1-

2-

2-
12

-1

-1

-1
1

2-

9-
-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1
14

08
07
7

7
0

0
0

0
0

0
Date

20
20
20

20
20

20

20

20

1-
-
1-

1-

1-

2-

2-

2-
12

2-
-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1
5-
14

21

28

12

19

26
Fig. 5. Accumulated interception by Msasa leaf litter at Kutsaga station (also shown
Date
as a percentage of gross precipitation).

Fig. 7. Canopy and forest floor interception at Belvedere station.

Accum Pgross 1.5 mm/min. However after drainage of the leaves, the static
Accum. Pnet threshold was highest at a lower intensity of 0.4 mm/min. The
Accum (Su+Sl) grass highest dynamic threshold for the grass was 1.5 mm at a rainfall
Accum. (Su+Sl) leaves
intensity of 0.6 mm/min. The highest static threshold for the grass
120 Accum. Eint (grass)
was 0.7 mm at an intensity of 0.6 mm/min. It must be emphasized
Accum Eint (leaves)
100 however, that the second and third experiments for both the leaf
litter and grass were carried out at slightly different intensities
80 and were thus difficult to compare.
(mm)

Fig. 8 also shows that the interception capacity depends on

60
rainfall intensity as reported by Calder et al. (1996). The static
40 water storage threshold for the Msasa leaf litter is highest with
the lowest intensity rainfall events. This is comparable to studies
20 carried out by Jackson (1971) in a tropical forest in Tanzania. In this
0
study, the static threshold is more important than the dynamic
threshold because it represents the storage which can only be lost
08

08

08
8
8

8
-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

by evaporation (Putuhena and Cordery, 1996). Low static thresh-

3-

3-

4-
-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3
2-

7-

1-
21

26

12

17

22

27

olds are observed for high intensities. This can be explained by

Date
Fig. 6. Comparison of the evaporation from interception between the Msasa leaf
litter and Thatching grass (19 February–31 March 2008).
3.4. Interception storage capacity
Sprinkler tests were carried out to determine the water storage
capacity. The tests indicate that water storage increases exponen-
tially during a storm until the storage capacity is reached. Two
types of storages can be determined (Sato et al., 2004). The first
is the dynamic storage which is the maximum amount of water de-
tained in the litter layer when free drainage ceases after rainfall.
After drainage has taken place, the amount of water remaining as
storage on the litter layer is the static storage. When rainfall stops
there is rapid initial drainage which then slows and ends at a lower
static storage. The Msasa leaf litter had a higher water storage
capacity than the Thatching grass for the three experiments carried
out as shown in Fig. 8.
The results of all three experiments indicate that Msasa leaf lit-
ter water storage capacity is higher than interception by Thatching
grass. This confirms the observation by Horton (1919), that large
broadleaved plants tend to hold water well on their leaves while
grass holds less water. As can be seen from Fig. 8, the dynamic stor-
age is in the same range for the Msasa leaf litter experiments but it
varies for the Thatching grass experiments. The highest dynamic
threshold for the Msasa leaf litter is 1.8 mm at an intensity of
the fact that at higher rainfall intensities the water stored on the
litter decreases because the bigger raindrops splash greater quan-
tities of water off the surface (Rutter et al., 1971; Calder et al.,
1996).
The Thatching grass had a higher static threshold at an intensity
of 0.6 l/min and the least threshold at an intensity of 1.4 mm/min.
A low static threshold has been recorded for an intensity of
0.4 mm/min. This disparity may have been caused by less grass
being used for this experiment compared to the other experiments.
This is because dry grass was used for each experiment since ante-
cedent soil moisture conditions affect water storage capacity. In
the future, it is recommended to weigh the litter first before the
tests or to allow for drying of the same litter before subsequent
tests are carried out.
4. Conclusions
The results of this study show that interception is a threshold
process. Canopy interception for the study period averaged 25%
of the rainfall. From the sprinkler experiment carried out, it can
be concluded that water storage capacity depends on storm inten-
sity with high intensity storms having less storage capacity and
rainfall falling gently having a higher storage capacity. The maxi-
mum storage capacities for the Msasa leaf litter and Thatching
grass were 1.8 mm and 1.5 mm respectively. Of most importance,
the study has confirmed that interception contributes significantly
 C.T. Tsiko et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47–48 (2012) 122–127 127

(b) Thatching grass

(a) Msasa leaf litter
2 Exp 1 (0.4 mm/min)
2 Exp 1 (0.4 mm/min)
1,8 Exp 2 (0.6 mm/min)
1,8 Exp 2 (0.8 mm/min)
1,6 Exp 3 (1.4 mm/min)
1,6 Exp 3 (1.5 mm/min)
1,4
1,4
1,2

(mm)
1,2
1
(mm)

1
0,8
0,8
0,6
0,6
0,4
0,4
0,2
0,2
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mins
mins

Fig. 8. Water storage capacities of Msasa leaf litter and Thatching grass for three experiments.

to the hydrological cycle and should be considered in hydrological
modelling and given greater consideration in rainfall – runoff stud-
ies. Further, combining canopy and forest floor interception yields
a value of 37% of the rainfall which is significant. Disregarding
interception is thus a misrepresentation.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Waternet for their support of
this research. Special thanks to TU Delft for the data loggers and
sensors and also the Meteorological Services Department, Harare
for the use of their premises and equipment.
References
Calder, I.R., Hall, R.L., Rosier, P.T.W., Bastable, H.G., Prasanna, K.T., 1996. Dependence
of rainfall interception on drop size: 2. Experimental determination of the
wetting functions and two-layer stochastic model parameters for five tropical
tree species. Journal of Hydrology 185, 379–388.
Carlyle-Moses, D.E., 2004. Throughfall, stemflow, and canopy interception loss
fluxes in a semi-arid Sierra Madre Oriental matorral community. Journal of Arid
Environments 58, 181–202.
De Groen, M.M., Savenije, H.H.G., 2006. A monthly interception equation based on
the statistical characteristics of daily rainfall. Water Resources Research 42,
W12417.
Edwards, K.A., Classen, G.A., Schroten, E.H.J., 1983. The Water Resource in Tropical
Africa and its Exploitation. ILCA Research Report No. 6, International Livestock
Centre for Africa.
Eltahir, E.A.B., Brass, R.L., 1994. Precipitation in the Amazon Basin. Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Meteorological Society 120, 861–880.
Gerrits, A.M.J., Savenije, H.H.G., Hoffman, I., Pfister, L., 2007. New technique to
measure forest floor interception-an application in a beech forest in
Luxembourg. Hydrology and Earth System Science 11, 695–701.
Gerrits, A.M.J., Pfister, L., Savenije, H.H.G., 2010. Spatial and temporal variability of
canopy and forest floor interception in a beech forest. Hydrological Processes
24, 3011–3025.
Gibbs-Russell, G.E., 1990. Grasses of Southern Africa. Mem. Bot. Surv. S. Africa, vol.
58 (Grass SAfr).
Hoover, M.D., Lunt, H.A., 1952. A key for the classification of forest humus types. Soil
Science Society Proceedings 16, 368–371.
Horton, R.E., 1919. Rainfall interception. Monthly Weather Review 47, 9.
Jackson, I.J., 1971. Problem of through fall and interception assessment under
tropical forest. Journal of Hydrology 12, 234–254.
Kiss, K.A., Gribovszki, Z., Kalicz, P., 2005. Rainfall interception by forest canopy and
forest litter in three different forest ecosystems at the eastern border of the
Alps. Geophysical Research Abstracts 7, 05430.
Klaassen, W., Bosveld, F., de Water, E., 1998. Water storage and evaporation as
constituents of rainfall interception. Journal of Hydrology 212–213, 36–50.
Leyton, L., Carlisle, A., 1959. Measurement and interpretation of interception by
forest stand. International Association of Hydrological Sciences Hanoversch –
Munden 48, 1111–1119.
Penman, H.L., 1963. Vegetation and hydrology. Tech. Commun. 53. Commonwealth
Bur. of soils, Harpenden, England.
Pidwirny, M., 2006. Evaporation and Transpiration: Fundamentals of Physical
Geography, second ed., <http://www.pysicalgeography.net/fundamentals/
8i.html>.
Putuhena, W.M., Cordery, I., 1996. Estimation of interception capacity of the forest
floor. Journal of Hydrology 180, 283–299.
Roberts, M.C., Klingeman, P.C., 1970. The influence of landform and precipitation
parameters on flood hydrographs. Journal of Hydrology 11, 393–411.
Rutter, A.J., Kershaw, K.A., Robins, P.C., Morton, A.J., 1971. A predictive model of
rainfall interception in forests, I. Derivation of the model from observations in a
plantation of Corsican pine. Agricultural Meteorology 9, 367–384.
Sato, Y., Kumagai, T., Kume, A., Otsuki, K., Ogawa, S., 2004. Experimental analysis of
moisture dynamics of litter layers - the effects of rainfall conditions and leaf
shapes. Hydrological Processes 18, 3007–3018.
Savenije, H.H.G., 1995. New definitions for moisture recycling and the relation with
land-use changes in the Sahel. Journal of Hydrology 167, 57–58.
Savenije, H.H.G., 2004. The importance of interception and why we should delete
the term evapotranspiration from our vocabulary. Hydrological Processes 18,
1507–1511.
Schaap, M.G., Bouten, W., 1997. Forest floor evaporation in a dense Douglas fir
stand. Journal of Hydrology 193, 97–119.
Shuttleworth, W.J., 1993. Evaporation. In: Handbook of Hydrology by d.r Maidment,
McGraw Hill (Chapter 4).
Tobon-Marin, C., Bouten, I.W., Dekker, S., 2000. Forest floor water dynamics and
root water uptake in four forest ecosystems in northwest Amazonia. Journal of
Hydrology 237, 169–183.
Torrance, J.D., 1981. Climate Handbook of Zimbabwe. Meteorological Services
Department, Harare, Zimbabwe.