*
 

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry

*

Towards harmonization of forest deposition collectors - case study of comparing collector designs

D Zlindra (1)   , K Eler (2), N Clarke (3), P Simončič (1)

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 218-225 (2011)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0586-004
Published: Nov 03, 2011 - Copyright © 2011 SISEF

Research Articles

Collection/Special Issue: COST Action FP0903 (2010) - Rome (Italy)
Research, monitoring and modelling in the study of climate change and air pollution impacts on forest ecosystems
Guest Editors: E Paoletti, J-P Tuovinen, N Clarke, G Matteucci, R Matyssek, G Wieser, R Fischer, P Cudlin, N Potocic


In recent years the harmonization of methods in the frame of the International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP Forests) operating under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) has been intensified. Among the C-actions of the FutMon project (LIFE07 ENV/D/000218; 2009-2010) the C1-Dep-22(SI) action was established with the goal to harmonize and develop the deposition monitoring procedures and sampling methods. The sampling equipment, spatial design of sampling plots and sampling frequency throughout Europe vary considerably. Therefore a step-by-step approach was made where the harmonized sampling equipment was developed and tested first. The selected collectors were installed at one observation plot of each participating country where measurements of throughfall and bulk deposition were run in parallel with the national collectors for a period of one year. To evaluate the agreement between methods, different statistical analyses were used including Altman-Bland plots, model II regression, and repeated measures ANOVA. Preliminary results from the “Intensive forest ecosystem monitoring plot” plot Brdo in NW Slovenia show a good agreement between national and harmonized bulk (both funnel-type) collectors, while comparison of throughfall measurements indicates systematic bias between harmonized (funnel-type) and national (gutter-type) collectors.

  Keywords


Precipitation amount, Precipitation chemistry, Forest monitoring, Harmonization, Collector design

Authors’ address

(1)
D Zlindra
P Simončič
Slovenian Forestry Institute, 1000 Ljubljana (Slovenia)
(2)
K Eler
University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, 1000 Ljubljana (Slovenia)
(3)
N Clarke
Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, 1431 s (Norway)

Corresponding author

Citation

Zlindra D, Eler K, Clarke N, Simončič P (2011). Towards harmonization of forest deposition collectors - case study of comparing collector designs. iForest 4: 218-225. - doi: 10.3832/ifor0586-004

Paper history

Received: Jan 03, 2011
Accepted: Apr 21, 2011

First online: Nov 03, 2011
Publication Date: Nov 03, 2011
Publication Time: 6.53 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 19222
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 15363
Abstract Page Views: 894
PDF Downloads: 2162
Citation/Reference Downloads: 17
XML Downloads: 786

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 3278
Overall contacts: 19222
Avg. contacts per week: 41.05

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Jun 2020)

Total number of cites (since 2011): 6
Average cites per year: 0.60

 

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

 
(1)
Altman DG, Bland JM (1983)
Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 32: 307-317.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(2)
Astrua M, Ichim D, Pennecci F, Pisani M (2007)
Statistical techniques for assessing the agreement between two instruments. Metrologia 44: 385-392.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(3)
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986)
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods in clinical measurement. Lancet 1 (8476): 307-310.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(4)
Bland JM, Altman DG (2007)
Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 17: 571-582.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(5)
Bleeker A, Draaijers G, van der Veen D, Erisman JW, Möls H, Fonteijn P, Geusebroek M (2003)
Field intercomparison of throughfall measurements performed within the framework of the Pan European intensive monitoring program of EU/ICP Forest. Environmental Pollution 125: 123-138.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(6)
Clarke N, Zlindra D, Ulrich E, Mosello R, Derome J, Derome K, König N, Lövblad G, Draaijers GPJ, Hansen K, Thimonier A, Waldner P (2010)
Sampling and analysis of deposition. Part XIV. In: “Manual on methods and criteria for harmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effects of air pollution on forests”. UNECE, ICP Forests, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 66. (ISBN: 978-3-926301-03-1)
Online | Gscholar
(7)
Crockford RH, Richardson DP (1990)
Partitioning of rainfall in a eucalypt forest and pine plantation in southeastern Australia. I. Throughfall measurement in aeucalypt forest: effect of method and species composition. Hydrological Processes 4: 131-144.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(8)
FAO (1998)
World reference base for soil resources. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 88
Gscholar
(9)
Kostelnik KM, Lynch JA, Grimm JW, Corbett ES (1989)
Sample size requirements for estimation of throughfall chemistry beneath a mixed hardwood forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 18: 274-280.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(10)
Legendre P, Legendre L (1998)
Numerical ecology (2nd edn). Elsevier, Amsterdam,The Netherlands, pp. 870.
Gscholar
(11)
Linnet K (1993)
Evaluation of regression procedures for methods comparison studies. Clinical Chemistry 39: 424-432.
Online | Gscholar
(12)
Llorens P, Domingo F (2007)
Rainfall partitioning by vegetation under Mediterranean conditions. A review of studies in Europe. Journal of Hydrology 335: 37-54.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(13)
Ludbrook J (2002)
Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods of measurement: a critical review. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 29: 527-536.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(14)
Myles PS, Cui J (2007)
Using Altman-Bland method to measure agreement with repeated measures. British Journal of Anaesthesia 99: 309-311.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(15)
Nieminen TM, Derome J, Helmisaari HS (1999)
Interactions between precipitation and Scots pine canopies along a heavy-metal pollution gradient. Environmental Pollution 106: 128-137.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(16)
Parker GG (1983)
Throughfall and stemflow in the forest nutrient cycle. Advances in Ecological Research 13: 57-133.
Gscholar
(17)
Reynolds ERC, Leyton L (1963)
Measurement and significance of throughfall in forest stands. In: “Water relations of plants” (Rutter AJ, Whitehead FH eds). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, pp. 127-141.
Gscholar
(18)
Reynolds B, Neal C (1991)
Trough versus funnel collectors for measuring throughfall volumes. Journal of Environmental Quality 20: 518-521.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(19)
Rodda JC, Smith SW (1986)
The significance of the systematic error in rainfall measurement for assessing wet deposition. Atmospheric Environment 20: 1059-1064.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(20)
Sevruk B, Hertig JA, Tettamanti R (1994)
The effect of orifice rim thickness on the wind speed above precipitation gauges. Atmospheric Environment 28: 1939-1944.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(21)
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995)
Biometry: the principles and practices of statistics in biological research (3rd edn). W.H. Freeman, New York, USA, pp. 888.
Gscholar
(22)
Thimonier A (1998)
Measurement of atmospheric deposition under forest canopies: some recommendations for equipment and sampling design. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 52: 353-387.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(23)
WMO (2008)
Guide to meteorological instruments and methods of observation (7th edn). World Metereological Organization Publication, no. 8, Geneva, Switzerland.
Online | Gscholar
(24)
Ziegler AD, Giambelluca TW, Nullet MA, Sutherland RA, Tantasarin C, Vogler JB, Negishi JN (2009)
Throughfall in an evergreen-dominated forest stand in northern Thailand: comparison of mobile and stationary methods. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149: 373-384.
CrossRef | Gscholar
 

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info