Research Article Influence of Plantation Establishment on...

Research ArticleInfluence of Plantation Establishment on DischargeCharacteristics in a Small Catchment of Tropical Forest

Siti Aisah Shamsuddin1 Zulkifli Yusop2 and Shoji Noguchi3

1Forest Research Institute Malaysia 52109 Kepong Selangor Malaysia2Institute of Environmental and Water Resource Management University Technology Malaysia 81310 Skudai Johor Malaysia3Department of Soil and Water Conservation Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute Tsukuba Ibaraki 305-8687 Japan

Correspondence should be addressed to Siti Aisah Shamsuddin sitiaisahfrimgovmy

Received 29 August 2014 Revised 18 November 2014 Accepted 18 November 2014 Published 16 December 2014

Academic Editor Piermaria Corona

Copyright copy 2014 Siti Aisah Shamsuddin et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

A study was conducted on the impact of forest clearance on discharge from newly establishedHopea odorata plantations catchment(144 ha) The stands were two years old when this study commenced in year 2006 and the data collection was carried out fortwo years The forested catchment (C3) was clear-cut during the preparation of the forest plantation and catchment C1 was leftundisturbed Discharge and rainfall were measured continuously for two years The discharge measured from years 1997 to 2003was used also to determine the water yield before and after forest clear-cutThis study showed that the plantation catchment is moreresponsive to storm with higher total water yield than in the forested catchment The effect of forest clear cutting to discharge wasclearly shown by the increment in the amount following the clear-cut activities and time taken for the recovery of the dischargeback to its original state was almost three yearsThe peak discharge in C3 also was affected in which the biggest change was obtainedduring the forest clear-cutting period compared with during calibration and after clearing periods This study is useful as basis forimproving the existing guidelines on forest plantation establishment

1 Introduction

The effects of deforestation on catchment hydrology aredependent on the removal of dominant plant species andthe climate [1] In catchments that receive high rainfalland have tall vegetation streamflow is a useful indicator ofhydrological responses to land-use change [2] Increase inwater yield would be expected following deforestation orremoval of forest coverThemagnitude of increase varies withthe annual rainfall and the proportion of cover removed [1]

In Malaysia the main conversion of forest is fromlowland forest to agriculture especially rubber and oil palmplantations which started in the early 1960s The studyon hydrological parameters by Abdul Rahim [3] on theconversion of secondary dipterocarp forest to cocoa and oilpalm plantations at Sungai Tekam Pahang revealed thatthe highest increases in water yield occurred in the secondand fourth years after treatment with 157 and 470 of

increments respectively (119875 = 1878mmyrminus1) The forestedcatchment had been subjected to timber logging clearfelled burning of logs road construction and tree plantingsAnother study carried out byAbdulRahimandHarding [4] atBerembunWatershed Negeri Sembilan showed the effects ofselective logging (commercial and supervised) on water yieldand streamflow They found significant water yield increasesin both catchments of which 70 was from commerciallogging and 37 was from supervised logging following thetreatments and the increases continued until the fourth year(119875 = 2126mmyrminus1) However a small increase in the wateryield was observed in the study at Sipitang Sabah by Malmer[5] when logged over forest was converted to A mangiumplantation involving manual felling manual wood extractionand no burning was applied Annual water yields increaseswere observed from80 to 197mmfor 3 years of study duration(119875 = 3341mmyrminus1) The study also included the conversionof secondary vegetation to A mangium plantation which

Hindawi Publishing CorporationInternational Journal of Forestry ResearchVolume 2014 Article ID 408409 10 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014408409

2 International Journal of Forestry Research

applied the normal practices and the results showed that thewater yield was increased higher than themanual felling with89ndash522mm with the same time duration

The impact of forest harvesting thinning and othersilvicultural treatments on runoff has been carried out byscientists using paired catchment experiments in which thecatchment size is less than 100 km2 and the results have shownthat forest harvesting can significantly increase annual runoffand magnify peak flow [6ndash13]

Forest plantation will be the future source of timber tomeet the forest resources demand and also because loggingin upper hill forest will be more costly However there is noexamination on the effect of establishment of forest plantationon runoff characteristics in Malaysia

The purpose of this study was to analyse the hydrographcharacteristics of a young forest plantation (C3) Hopeaodorata in comparison with a forested catchment (C1) Fromthe hydrograph water discharges (119876) were determined usingequations which were obtained from rating table curvesof each catchment followed by the hydrograph separationprocesses in order to separate the stormflow from thebaseflow before further analysis can be carried out Thestudies focused on four aspects that is first in the wateryield aspect we use the unpublished daily discharges datafrom years 1997 to 2004 2006 and 2007 in the analysisof water balance with the objective to look at the changesover the selected years In the other two aspects we usedthe 2006 and 2007 data observation only for hydrographanalysis of stormflow and stormflow response to rainfallcharacteristics The stormflow analysis is to determine therelationships between the stormflow and rainfall for bothcatchments while stormflow response to rainfall is to examinethe hydrograph characteristics differences between the twocatchments related to wet and dry conditions of the soilThe last aspect is the analysis on peak discharges before andafter the forest clearance from 1997 to 2007 The regressionanalysis on dummy variables was applied on peak dischargesto determine the effect of forest clearance on 119876

2 Material and Methods

21 Study Area This study was conducted in catchmentC1 (328 ha) and catchment C3 (144 ha) at Bukit TarekExperimental Watershed (3∘3110158403010158401015840N 101∘351015840E 48ndash213mFigure 1) Peninsular Malaysia This forest is classified asa lowland rainforest and was first logged in 1963 Thecatchment characteristics of C1 and C3 are shown in Table 1The original composition of vegetation was dominated byKoompassia malaccensis Eugenia spp and Canarium sppThe period between January 1997 and October 1999 wastaken as a calibration period The commercial timber treesin C3 were logged from November 1999 until August 2000The remaining unmerchantable trees were clear-cut and theresidual trees were burnt from December 2003 to January2004 prior to forest planting The Hopea odorata trees wereplanted in April 2004 The trees were about two years oldwhen this study was initiated The period of data observed

0 240

N

Peninsula Malaysia

Indonesia

Stream channel

Gauging stationRain gauge

(m)

4∘N

100m100m

100m

100m

C1 C2

C3

102∘E

Figure 1 Bukit Tarek Experimental Watershed Kerling Selangor

from September 2000 to December 2003 was considered asthe period after forest logging

This area is dominated bymetamorphic rock fromArena-ceous series with silt sediment which was formed in TriassicEra [15] Some slopes in these catchments can reach up to 40∘as a result of metamorphic process in this area with strongforces from both W-SW directions [16 17]

22 Hydrological Observation Runoff discharge was mea-sured at the 120-degree V-notch weir at the stream outletof catchment Weir flow rate was continuously monitoredusing the float-type water level instruments (C1 StevenRecorder Chart C3 W-021 Yokogawa Japan) and capacitivewater level sensor (C1 and C3 WT-HR TruTrack NZ) Thedischarge was calculated using rating table for discharge-stage relationships Rainfalls were measured by a standardmanual storage rain gauge and a tipping bucket rain gaugenear the weirs Automatic tipping bucket rain gauge by OtaKeiki Seisakusho (sn 689012) with bucket capacity sensitivityof 05mmtip and receiver diameter is 200mm plusmn 03 Rainfallevents were defined as a rain amount captured gt05mmwithno periods of rainfall of more than 6 hours from the lastrainfall events

23 Analysis Theaverage daily discharges of years 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 and 2007 wereused to determine the water yields based on the water yearsin Malaysia which starts from July of each year to June inthe following year Water year also known as hydrologicyear which is from 1 July to 30 June of the following yearis the period for the southern hemisphere It is based onany twelve-month period usually selected to begin and endduring a relative dry season and used as a basis for processingstreamflow and other hydrological data The year from 1 July2006 to 30 June 2007 is called the 2007 water year

International Journal of Forestry Research 3

Table 1 Catchment characteristics of C1 and C3

Element C1 (undisturbed forest) C3 (forest plantation)Size (ha) 328 144Elevation (masl)

Highest 175 150Lowest 48 65

Mean slope () 325 277Aspect Northwestern SouthwesternStream order 3rd order 2nd orderDrainage density (kmkmminus2) 51 46Morphology

Form factor 051 050Circulatory ratio 071 058Shape factor 194 201Elongation ratio 081 080

Vegetation (main) Koompassia malaccensis Eugenia spp Canarium spp Hopea odorata

Soil seriesKuala Berang

(Orthoxic Tropodult)Bungor (Typic Paleudult)

Kuala Berang(Orthoxic Tropodult)

Surficial geology Metamorphic rocks (quartzite quartz mica schist graphitic schist and phyllite from Arenaceous series)(Source Noguchi et al 1994 [14])

The hydrographs were separated using the method ofHewlett and Hibbert [18] into stormflow and delayed flow orbaseflow for C1 and C3 The separation line has the constantslope of 00055 litres secminus1 haminus1 hrminus1 which is projected fromthe initial rise until it intersects the recession limb of thehydrograph Data from January 2006 to June 2007 were usedfor stormflow analysis as there were many storms of morethan 30mm that occurred in year 2006 and less in year 2007

The selected single storm events were analysed basedon the different rainfall characteristics and soil conditionsAntecedent precipitation index (API

119899

) is widely used as indexto represent soil moisture condition with 119899 representing thenumber of days selected to be suitable for the index at thestudy site It is defined as follows API

119899

= sum119899

119894=1

119875119894

119894 where 119875119894

is daily precipitation (mm) and 119894 is days beforehand [19]It is difficult to determine the time of concentration from

the hydrograph In the graph of storm events 119905119888

was locatedat the point of recession limb where the change in the slopeoccurredThe kinetic wave equation used to determine the 119905

119888

was as follows

119905119888

=

093 (11987106

) (11987306

)

(11989404) (11987803) (1)

where119871= overland flow length (m)119873=Manning roughness119894 = rainfall intensity (msminus1) 119878 = average overland flow pathslope (mmminus1)

The regression analysis of dummy variation was carriedout to detect the changes in flows of the treated catchment(C3) by using the peak discharge parameterThemethod usedto compare regressions by the approach of dummy variablesfollows the multistep Chow test procedure This technique

was originally described by an economist [20] and thenapplied in hydrological research by Hewlett [21] Hewlettand Doss [22] Swindle and Douglass [23] and Hsia [24]Multiple linear regression with dummy variables was appliedto explain the relationship between 119883 and 119884 at differencephases Full model regression equation is as follows

119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883 + 1205733

1198633

119883

+ 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(2)

where 119884 is peak discharge of treated catchment (C3) 119883 ispeak discharge of control catchment (C1)

1198632

= 1 for forest clear-cutting phase0 for other phases

1198633

= 1 for recovery phase0 for other phases

1198634

= 1 for postplanting phase0 for other phases

(3)

and 120572119894

and 120573119894

are parameters of regression model


Table 2 Yearly discharges (Q) and annual loss (ET) of C1 and C3 based on water year and by percentages of rainfall

Water year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007P (mm) 21672 28980 31770 27070 25070 33858 28860 34747

C1Q (mm) 6317

(291)12769(441)

17256(543)

15542(574)

10518(420)

18592(549) NA 20217

(582)

ET (mm) 15355(709)

16211(559)

14514(457)

11528(426)

14552(580)

15266(451) NA 13285

(418)

C3Q (mm) 4187

(193)10050(347)

14900(469)

15576(575)

8455(337)

13523(399)

12171(422)

21339(614)

ET (mm) 17485(807)

18930(653)

16870(531)

11494(425)

16615(663)

20335(601)

16689(578)

12163(386)

Activities in C3 Calibration Forest clearance Recovery PlantingNA = not available

Full model regression equation is as follows

119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883

+ 1205733

1198633

119883 + 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(4)

where 1205721

is intercept before clear felling (Calibration) 1205722

1205723

and 1205724

are differential intercepts 1205731

is slope coefficientbefore clear felling and 120573

2

1205733

and 1205734

are differential slopecoefficients

3 Results and Discussion

31 Water Yield Changes Generally Table 2 shows the dis-charges from the two small headwater catchments fluctuatedaccording to the rainfall received in that particular year Thewater yield of C1 was very low in 1998 water year whichcoincided with the extreme weather that occurred in thesame year but it was increased the following 1999 water yearwith the increase in rainfall The rainfall received was alsolow in 1998 water year compared with the long-term average(2816mm) Discharges were higher than ET for undisturbedforest (C1) in 2001 2003 and 2007water years (except in 2002water year)

The same situations also found in C3 in 1998 and 1999water years with Q were less than ET In the following yearafter forest clearance of C3 Q was more than ET but reducedto be lower from 2002 to 2004 water years and then becamehigher again in 2007 water year that is two years after treeplanting There were lacks of Q data for years 2004 and 2005(C1) and year 2005 (C3) Hence the water balances were notavailable for 2004 2005 and 2006 water years (C1) and 2005and 2006 water years (C3)

Meanwhile it showed that the discharges amount waslower in C3 than in C1 This is related to the differencesbetween the two catchments C1 is bigger and has a higherstream order than C3 But in the 2007 water year the wateryield indicated that the discharge from C3 was higher thanC1 after it had been cleared again in 2004 before plantingand two years after the trees were planted The difference

was only 188mm which is small compared with the yearlytotal considering that the forest plantationwas in the growingstage

Based on the water balance analysis the water yields Qranged from 291ndash582 of P (C1) and 193ndash614 of P (C3)while the ET values ranged from 418ndash709 of P (C1) and425ndash807 of P (C3) The high ET found in this study suggestthat humid tropical forest needs high energy to satisfy itsevapotranspirative demands

The impacts of forest plantation establishment dependon two major factors which are the clear felling operationand plant species characteristics The site (C3) was clear-cut and the use of heavy machinery during site preparationdamaged the soil surface and increased the surface runoffThe construction on forest roads and skid trails in the forestlogging operation in C3 also contributed quite a majorportion of surface runoff to the stream Earlier study at C3 bySidle et al [25] found that the logging roads contribute more119876 to the stream than the skid trails As the result 78 of thesoil loss from the road system (including log landings) wasdelivered to the stream in the 16 months after forest loggingbegun

This finding concurred with Negishi et al [26] whohighlighted the importance of intercepted subsurface flow(ISSF) contribution to road runoff and sediment transport atC3 The area of C3 constituted 32 of logging roads 65of skid trails and 15 of log landing areas The one yearstudy revealed that 79 of the road runoffwas contributed bythe ISSF The runoff came not only from vertical and lateralsubsurface flow but also from preferential flow pathway insoil including decayed and live root channel

There was not much differences in water yield in C1However C3 showed significant increase in water yield afterthe forest was clear-cut and it took about three years beforethe values started to decline as the forest was recovering(Figure 2) As the H odorata in C3 was still young (2 yearsold) the water yield in C3 was higher than C1 by 188 mm

The results from this study are consistent with thefindings from small paired-watershed studies with an areaof less than 100 km2 The annual runoff was found almostsimilar to the finding fromother studies despite the differencein forest species forestry operation and climatic conditionThis has been shown in the studies by Scott and Prinsloo [9]


00

1997199819992000

200120022003

Recovery

PlantingCalibration

2 4 6 8 10 12

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clea

r-cu

t (N

ov1999

ndashAug

2000

)

times104

times104

Cum

dai

ly d

ischa

rge i

nC3

(Lsminus

1km

minus2)

Cum daily discharge in control catchment (L sminus1 kmminus2)

Figure 2 Changes in cumulative daily discharge between C1 andC3 which showed the effect of clear-cutting during the preparationof forest plantation in C3

andAlila et al [10]The effects alsowere found in earlier stud-ies by Bruijnzeel [27] and Waterloo et al [28] The greatesteffect on discharge was observed during forest clearance andthe recovery period begin for 2minus3 years after planting hascompleted The study of five small catchments by Webb etal [29] showed a significant increase in streamflow followingforest disturbance For the catchment which was logged andburnt the annual runoff had returned to pretreatment levelswithin 25 years The annual water yield changes range from120 to 3196mm

The study on impacts of forest harvesting of a largewatersheds (gt1000 km2) which was conducted by Zhang etal [30] at Yangtze River basin (2528 km2) showed that thesignificant annual runoff change occurred about 10 years afterthe intensive harvesting with the average in annual runoffincrement being 38mmyrminus1

32 Stormflow Characteristics Rainfall less than 30mm(small storms) produced small stormflows and thereforethe effect of antecedent soil moisture was not obviousUnder this condition the bulk of stormflow was contributedby channel precipitation and direct runoff riparian areasWhen the storm was more than 30mm the stormflowproduced was heavily governed by the soil moisture con-ditions which involved interflowsubsurface flow processesResults from the hydrograph separation showed that thestormflow responses to storms can be clearly divided into wet

and dry conditions As suggested by Noguchi et al [31]the relationships between rainfall and stormflow for stormsmore than 30mm can be evaluated using linear regressionsas shown in Figure 3 for C1 and C3 respectively

The changes in the hydrologic response to forest clearingand subsequent planting of plantation species were detectedby the relationships between stormflow and rainfall amountunder wet and dry conditions The stormflow response wasclosely related to the antecedent soil moisture conditionsWith the smaller forest canopy less rainfall was needed tostart producing stormflow compared with a much denserforest during wet and dry conditions With more vegetationcovering the surface the stormflow duration was longer withmore time taken during the recession period

The linear regression equations show that the stormflowsstarted to increase when the rainfalls exceeded the thresholdlimits of 345mm for C1 and 221mm for C3 during wetconditions The thresholds rainfall for stormflow productionincreased slightly during dry conditions to 531mm for C1and to 458mm for C3 respectively C3 responded faster thanC1 Another event occurred between wet and dry conditionswhere large rainfall with low stormflow was determined andit was considered as transition between the two conditionsDuring rains that occurred following the dry conditionswater was absorbed quickly in the soil so that only smallstormflows were produced even though the amounts ofrainfall were large

33 Stormflow Response to Rainfall Characteristics Thehyetograph and single peak storm hydrograph analysisdemonstrate the quick responses of these two catchmentswith the stormflow (QF) duration and time of concentration(119905119888

) were faster in C3 than in C1 while the times to peak (119905119901

)were almost the same for both (Table 3) The rising limbs ofthe hydrographs for both catchments were very steep and therecession limbs depended on the rainfall intensity especiallyduring large storm events This analysis used 21 single peakstorm events both in C1 and C3 On average C1 has a longerstormflow duration (121 hr) compared with C3 (70 hr) Thisis expected because the overland flow path length in C1(750m) is longer than in C3 (139m) The estimated time ofconcentration 119905

119888

in C1 was 247min whereas for C3 it wasonly 138min Although the maximum and minimum timesto peak 119905

119901

for C1 and C3 showed considerable differences theaverage 119905

119901

values for both catchments were very closeThe forest clearing resulted in C3 responded faster than

in C1 The hydrograph shape with a steep rising limb andconcave recession limb is quite typical to vegetated smallcatchments For example in the subhumid tropical forestof Karso watershed in India with an annual rainfall of1243mm Rai et al [32] found that the hydrograph responseto rainfall varied with rainfall intensity and vegetation coverchanges in rainfall-runoff responses as a result of naturalforest conversion to forest plantation especially during largestorm events

Besides the influence of vegetation cover on runoffgeneration rainfall intensity also plays an important role instormflow generation For the same amount of storm size


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

WetDryWetdry

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 1193x minus 41193 R2 = 0955

y = 1135x minus 60241

R2 = 0939

P lt 30mm

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 0881x minus 19484 R2 = 0909

y = 0881x minus 40315

R2 = 0946

WetDryWetdry

P lt 30mm

(b)

Figure 3 Relationships between stormflow (QF) and rainfall events during wet and dry conditions in control catchment C1 (a) and plantationcatchment C3 (b) for observation from January 2006 to June 2007

Table 3 Single peak hydrograph characteristics in C1 and C3 for 2007 water year The parameters include time to peak (119905119901

) quick flow (QF)duration and time of concentration (119905

119888

) with 119899 being the number of storms

Time to peak 119905119901

(min) QF duration (hr) Time of concentration 119905119888

(min)Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean

C1 (119899 = 25) 420 60 285 350 14 109 470 105 240C3 (119899 = 33) 540 120 274 237 15 62 281 84 141

short storm duration (high intensity) produces more totaldischarge and also stormflow duration is shorter for lessvegetated surface than matured forest canopy The largesteffect on the changes can be seen in the analysis of singlepeak storm events The magnitude of peak discharge washigher and the QF duration was shorter in C3 than in C1The increase in peak flow following forest clearing was alsoobserved by Guillemette et al [7] in Montmorency Forest inQuebec Canada

Figure 4(a) shows single peak storm hydrographs on 19July 2006 for C1 and C3 The soil on 19 July 2006 wasrelatively dry because there had been no rain for sevendays before that day and the API

30

was 75mm (less than50mm) This rainfall was large with relatively long duration(60min)The rainfall intensity was also high (585mmhrminus1)The hydrograph rose six minutes earlier in C3 than in C1Thetime taken during the recession (peak to end of separationline) for C1 was almost 1 hr longer than for C3 Howeverthe shapes of both hydrographs were almost similar Thehydrographs responded quickly and the recessions were alsorapid with steep slopesThe relatively small rainfall of 28mmon 15 October 2006 had a longer duration (50min) as shownin Figure 4(b) There had been no rain for three days beforethat day and the API

30

was 203mm (less than 50mm)The resulted hydrograph of C3 was shaper with shortertime to peak compared with that of C1 The slope of therecession limb for C3 was also steeper with a shorter timeto reach the end of separation from peak point compared

with that of C1 The soil conditions were considered weton 14 November and 8 December 2006 as the API

30

were895 and 544mm respectively (more than 50mm) Thelonger duration (48min) of a heavy storm (581mmhrminus1)showed longer stormflow duration for both catchments on14 November 2006 The gentle slope of the recession limbin C1 was in contrast to the sharp slope of a recessionlimb in C3 (Figure 4(c)) The stormflow shapes were notmuch different between Figures 4(c) and 4(d) Except duringthe light rain that occurred in short duration (30min) thestormflow duration of C1 was longer than that of C3 on 8December 2006 as shown in Figure 4(d)The flashy responseand steep recession of stormflow in C3 were shown

Noguchi et al [33] described in detail the roles of soilmoisture in rainfall-runoff response at C1 They found thatsaturation occurred at 10 cm depth near the river valley(30ndash50m from the river bank) during wet conditions Theyascribed this to the presence of impeding layers at depthsbetween 10 and 20 cm which contained high content oforganicmatter and high density of rootsThismade the layershighly transmissive relative to the underlying soil layersThisshowed that runoff generation in this catchment is associatedwith subsurface flow The soil layer of Kuala Berang seriesat this depth consists of sandy loam to sandy loam with siltand numerous pores Noguchi et al [33] also found thatduring dry condition the streamflow responded quickly torainfall and declined rapidly after the rain had stopped Thissuggested that most of the net rainfalls were retained in the


0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)

Figure 4 Stormflow hydrographs for C1 and C3 during (a) dry condition on 19 July 2006 (b) dry condition on 15 October 2006 (c) wetcondition on 14 November 2006 and (d) wet condition on 8 December 2006

soil to fill up the soil moisture deficit and thus only a smallportion could contribute to stormflow During wet conditionthe soil was wet at all parts of the slope and the rainwater wasfound to percolate to deeper parts and downslope as shownby the observations at 10 cm and 160 cm depths during largestorms

34 Regression Analysis on Dummy Variables for LoggingEffects on Peak Discharge (119876

119901

) Multiple linear regressionwith dummy variables was applied to explain the relationshipbetween peak discharges of control catchment (C1) 119883 andpeak discharges of treated catchment (C3) 119884 at differ-ence phases The peak discharges were determined from


510 storms from years 1997 to 2007 from C1 and C3 Byusing Minitab the results of multiple linear regressions withdummy variables could be written as

119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)

The results also show that not all of the parameters in themodel are statistically significant at 5 level of significance1198633

(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632

119883 (119875 lt 005) are statistically significant but 1198633

119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4

119883 (119875 = 0551) are not statistically significantThese results also show that the estimation process of themultiple linear regression model can be continued until thefinal multiple linear regression was determined (ie modelwith all parameters which are significant)

By using stepwise procedure the results show that fivepredictors (independent variables) significantly influence thevariable 119884 that is variable 119883 (119875 lt 0001) 119863

4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633

(119875 lt 005) (inchronological order at stepwise results) In this final modelthe constant (intercept) is not significant (119875 = 0599) sowe eliminate the constant from the model and reestimatethe model without the constant Therefore the final multiplelinear regression model could be written as follows

119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)

This model shows that variable 119883 was significant withreference to variable 119884 and the effects were different for eachphase (Figure 5) The effect of 119883 on 119884 at the forest clear-cutting phase is the largest compared with other phases Thelargest slope (119887) occurs at forest clear-cutting phase that is328 It means that the increase of119883 at this phase also yieldedthe largest increase of 119884 compared with other phases thatis 155 at the postplanting phase and 126 at both calibrationand recovery phases The peak discharges increased higherin C3 than C1 after the removal of forest canopy as thehydrograph response also showed the faster response andshorter stormflow duration in C3 with sharp rising limband recession compared with C1 with comparatively lesssteep rising limb and longer stormflow duration with theeffect of forest canopy cover Additionally the constant atthe postplanting phase was the largest compared with otherphases that is 607 211 and 0 for the postplanting phaserecovery phase and both forest clear-cutting and calibrationphases respectivelyThis shows that forest clearance changedthe hydrological condition of the forested catchment with theeffect to the peak discharge still existing years after the forestwas planted and it would take time to go back to its originalstate with the forest recovery or it would not

Further analysis of dummy regression showed the effectof forest clearing in increasing the peak discharge in C3 inrelation to C1The equation derived from the regression anal-ysis on dummy variables showed the relationships betweenthe control and treated catchments These relationships canbe used to predict water yield (peak discharge) that wouldoccur in the treated catchment which can be applied to

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3

Before forest clear-cuttingForest clear-cuttingForest recoveryAfter forest planting

y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1

Figure 5 Multiple liner regressions analysis on peak discharge of119876119901

between treated catchment (C3) and control catchment (C1)after elimination of nonsignificant values in the analysis of dummyvariables

other treatment catchments at different sites Four regressionequations from the four stages were involved in the forestconversion that is calibration period during forest clear-cutoperation forest recovery period and postforest plantingThe highest impact was shown during the forest clearanceoperation which showed that the peak flow increased about33 times higher than control catchment while the rate washigher for the postforest planting period as the area wascleared again prior to tree planting

The colonization by undergrowth and natural vegeta-tion expedites the hydrological recovery in the plantationcatchment There will be additional water yield for a fewyears while the Hopea odorata stands are still young and thiswould possibly decrease as the trees attain their full growthpotential

4 Conclusions

The influence of forest plantation establishment on dischargecharacteristics in a 144 ha area (C3) was conducted in thisstudy Based on the observation carried out for two yearsafter the establishment of two-year-oldH odorata forest plan-tation and the analysis of unpublished monthly dischargesdata collection four aspects of analysis were carried outIt was found that the total discharge in the young forestplantation was more than in the mature forested stand aftertwo years of establishment It means that the forest plantationestablishment increased the streamflow The yearly wateryield indicated that the values in both catchments werefluctuated according to the rainfall received in the same year

The stormflow responses to rainfall vary with soil mois-ture which is represented by antecedent precipitation indexincident rainfall and initial flowThe responses can be clearly


grouped into three conditions namelyduring wet conditiontransitions from wet to dry conditions and dry conditionsStrong linear regression relationships were shown betweenstormflow and rainfall events

The response of stormflow in the young forest plantation(C3) to rainfall was faster than in C1 where less rainfallamount was needed for the stormflow thresholds for wet anddry conditions The water reached the stream faster in C3as the stormflow duration was shorter compared with C1This shows that vegetation is one of the important factors incontrolling runoff generation

The greatest impact was observed during forest clearanceIncreases in peak discharge and water yield even were stillobserved even after two years of forest planting

This study has demonstrated the difference characteristicsbetween forested and newly established forest plantationcatchments Forest plantation can be established with a closesupervision in order to reduce the impact on the environmentas the degree of disturbance determines how long the timeneeded for the forest to revert to its background level

As a recommendation for the future research detailedstudies over longer time periods would be needed to show thechanges with the growth of the trees This will help uncoverfurther characteristics of theH odorata tree and its suitabilityas one of the tree species that can be planted in the forestedcatchment This present study has provided some new andrelevant information on the hydrological behaviour of forestplantation at Bukit Tarek ExperimentalWatershed which canbe used in the forestmanagement particularly of this lowlandrainforest

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Forest Research InstituteMalaysia (FRIM) for facilitating this research this study wasfinancially supported by the Ministry of Science Technologyand Innovation (MOSTI) under the E-Science Fund (MOA)through Grant No 31300203003 This study was also sup-ported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(JSPS) for KAKENHI (23221009)

References

[1] M D Newson Land Water and Development SustainableManagement of River Basin System Routledge London UK1997

[2] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill London UK 2000

[3] N Abdul Rahim ldquoWater yield changes after forest conversion toagricultural landuse in Peninsular Malaysiardquo Journal of TropicalForest Science vol 1 no 1 pp 67ndash84 1988

[4] N Abdul Rahim and D Harding ldquoEffect of selective log-ging methods on water yield and streamflow parameters in

Peninsular Malaysiardquo Journal of Tropical Forest Science vol 5pp 130ndash154 1992

[5] A Malmer ldquoWater-yield changes after clear-felling tropicalrainforest and establishment of forest plantation in SabahMalaysiardquo Journal of Hydrology vol 134 pp 77ndash94 1992

[6] A E Brown L Zhang T A McMahon A W Western andR A Vertessy ldquoA review of paired catchment studies for deter-mining changes in water yield resulting from alterations invegetationrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 310 no 1ndash4 pp 28ndash612005

[7] F Guillemette A P Plamondon M Prevost and D LevesqueldquoRainfall generated stormflow response to clearcutting a borealforest peak flow comparison with 50 world-wide basin studiesrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 302 no 1ndash4 pp 137ndash153 2005

[8] C Fernandez J A Vega J M Gras and T Fonturbel ldquoChangesin water yield after a sequence of perturbations and forest man-agement practices in an Eucalyptus globulus Labill watershed inNorthern Spainrdquo Forest Ecology and Management vol 234 no1mdash3 pp 275ndash281 2006

[9] D F Scott and F W Prinsloo ldquoLonger-term effects of pine andeucalypt plantations on streamflowrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 45 no 7 Article IDW00A08 2009

[10] Y Alila P K KurasM Schnorbus and RHudson ldquoForests andfloods a new paradigm sheds light on age-old controversiesrdquoWater Resources Research vol 45 no 8 Article ID W084162009

[11] H P Ganatsios P A Tsioras and T Pavlidis ldquoWater yieldchanges as a result of silvicultural treatments in an oak ecosys-temrdquo Forest Ecology and Management vol 260 no 8 pp 1367ndash1374 2010

[12] J Kinal and G L Stoneman ldquoHydrological impact of twointensities of timber harvest and associated silviculture in thejarrah forest in south-western Australiardquo Journal of Hydrologyvol 399 no 1-2 pp 108ndash120 2011

[13] B X Dung T Gomi S Miyata R C Sidle K Kosugi andY Onda ldquoRunoff responses to forest thinning at plot andcatchment scales in a headwater catchment draining Japanesecypress forestrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 444-445 pp 51ndash622012

[14] S Noguchi N Rahim S Saifuddin M Tani T Sammori andM Tani ldquoHydrological characteristics of tropical rain forest inpeninsular Malaysia (1)-general hydrological observations ona hillsloperdquo in Proceedings of the International Symposium onForest Hydrology Tokyo Japan October 1994

[15] F W Roe ldquoThe geology and mineral resources of the Frasershill area Selangor Perak and Pahang Federation Malaysia withan account of the mineral resourcesrdquo Memoir No 5 GeologySurvey Department Federation of Malaya 1951

[16] S Saifuddin N Abdul Rahim and M F Abdul Rashid ldquoEstab-lishment and physical characteristics of Bukit Tarek watershedrdquoFRIM Research Pamphlet vol 110 pp 1ndash51 1991

[17] S Saifuddin Hubungkait kiantara ciri-ciri morfometri dansebahagian parameter hidrologi di tadahan berhutan TesisIjazah Sarjana Sastera Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia BangiMalaysia 1994

[18] J D Hewlett and A R Hibbert ldquoFactors affecting the responseof small watersheds to precipitation in humid area Irdquo inProceedings of the International Symposium on Forest HydrologyW E Sopper andHW Lull Eds pp 275ndash290 Pergamon PressNew York NY USA 1967


[19] M PMosley ldquoSubsurface flow velocities through selected forestsoils South Island New Zealandrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 55no 1ndash4 pp 65ndash92 1982

[20] D Gujarati ldquoUse of dummy variable in testing for equalitybetween sets of coefficients in two linear regression a noterdquoTheAmerican Statistician vol 24 no 1 pp 50ndash52 1970

[21] J D Hewlett ldquoForests and floods in the light of recent investi-gationrdquo in Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrology Symposiumon Hydrological Processes of Forested Areas New BrunswickCanada June 1982

[22] J D Hewlett and R Doss ldquoForests floods and erosion awatershed experiment in the southeastern Piedmontrdquo ForestScience vol 30 no 2 pp 424ndash434 1984

[23] B F Swindel and J E Douglass ldquoDescribing and testingnonlinear treatment effects in paired watershed experimentsrdquoForest Science vol 30 no 2 pp 305ndash313 1984

[24] Y-J Hsia ldquoChanges in storm hydrographs after clearcutting at asmall hardwood-forested watershed in Central Taiwanrdquo ForestEcology and Management vol 20 no 1-2 pp 117ndash133 1987

[25] R C Sidle S Sasaki M Otsuki S Noguchi and N AbdulRahim ldquoSediment pathways in a tropical forest effects oflogging roads and skid trailsrdquoHydrological Processes vol 18 no4 pp 703ndash720 2004

[26] J N Negishi R C Sidle A D Ziegler S Noguchi and N ARahim ldquoContribution of intercepted subsurface flow to roadrunoff and sediment transport in a logging-disturbed tropicalcatchmentrdquo Earth Surface Processes and Landforms vol 33 no8 pp 1174ndash1191 2008

[27] L A Bruijnzeel ldquoHydrological functions of tropical forestsnot seeing the soil for the treesrdquo Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment vol 104 no 1 pp 185ndash228 2004

[28] M JWaterloo J Schellekens L A Bruijnzeel andT T RawaqaldquoChanges in catchment runoff after harvesting and burning of aPinus caribaea plantation in Viti Levu Fijirdquo Forest Ecology andManagement vol 251 no 1-2 pp 31ndash44 2007

[29] A A Webb A Kathuria and L Turner ldquoLonger-term changesin streamflow following logging andmixed species eucalypt for-est regeneration the Karuah experimentrdquo Journal of Hydrologyvol 464-465 pp 412ndash422 2012

[30] M Zhang X Wei P Sun and S Liu ldquoThe effect of forest har-vesting and climatic variability on runoff in a large watershedThe case study in the Upper Minjiang River of Yangtze Riverbasinrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 464-465 pp 1ndash11 2012

[31] S Noguchi N Abdul Rahim and M Tani ldquoRunoff charac-teristics in a tropical rain forest catchmentrdquo Japan AgriculturalResearch Quarterly vol 39 no 3 pp 215ndash219 2005

[32] R K Rai A Upadhyay and V P Singh ldquoEffect of variableroughness on runoffrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 382 no 1ndash4 pp115ndash127 2010

[33] S Noguchi A R Nik Z Yusop M Tani and T SammorildquoRainfall-runoff responses and roles of soil moisture variationsto the response in tropical rain forest Bukit Tarek PeninsularMalaysiardquo Journal of Forest Research vol 2 no 3 pp 125ndash1321997

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of



EcosystemsJournal of


MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of


Marine BiologyJournal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in


Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of



Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics


Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of


BiodiversityInternational Journal of


ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


ClimatologyJournal of


applied the normal practices and the results showed that thewater yield was increased higher than themanual felling with89ndash522mm with the same time duration

The impact of forest harvesting thinning and othersilvicultural treatments on runoff has been carried out byscientists using paired catchment experiments in which thecatchment size is less than 100 km2 and the results have shownthat forest harvesting can significantly increase annual runoffand magnify peak flow [6ndash13]

Forest plantation will be the future source of timber tomeet the forest resources demand and also because loggingin upper hill forest will be more costly However there is noexamination on the effect of establishment of forest plantationon runoff characteristics in Malaysia

The purpose of this study was to analyse the hydrographcharacteristics of a young forest plantation (C3) Hopeaodorata in comparison with a forested catchment (C1) Fromthe hydrograph water discharges (119876) were determined usingequations which were obtained from rating table curvesof each catchment followed by the hydrograph separationprocesses in order to separate the stormflow from thebaseflow before further analysis can be carried out Thestudies focused on four aspects that is first in the wateryield aspect we use the unpublished daily discharges datafrom years 1997 to 2004 2006 and 2007 in the analysisof water balance with the objective to look at the changesover the selected years In the other two aspects we usedthe 2006 and 2007 data observation only for hydrographanalysis of stormflow and stormflow response to rainfallcharacteristics The stormflow analysis is to determine therelationships between the stormflow and rainfall for bothcatchments while stormflow response to rainfall is to examinethe hydrograph characteristics differences between the twocatchments related to wet and dry conditions of the soilThe last aspect is the analysis on peak discharges before andafter the forest clearance from 1997 to 2007 The regressionanalysis on dummy variables was applied on peak dischargesto determine the effect of forest clearance on 119876

2 Material and Methods

21 Study Area This study was conducted in catchmentC1 (328 ha) and catchment C3 (144 ha) at Bukit TarekExperimental Watershed (3∘3110158403010158401015840N 101∘351015840E 48ndash213mFigure 1) Peninsular Malaysia This forest is classified asa lowland rainforest and was first logged in 1963 Thecatchment characteristics of C1 and C3 are shown in Table 1The original composition of vegetation was dominated byKoompassia malaccensis Eugenia spp and Canarium sppThe period between January 1997 and October 1999 wastaken as a calibration period The commercial timber treesin C3 were logged from November 1999 until August 2000The remaining unmerchantable trees were clear-cut and theresidual trees were burnt from December 2003 to January2004 prior to forest planting The Hopea odorata trees wereplanted in April 2004 The trees were about two years oldwhen this study was initiated The period of data observed

0 240

N

Peninsula Malaysia

Indonesia

Stream channel

Gauging stationRain gauge

(m)

4∘N

100m100m

100m

100m

C1 C2

C3

102∘E

Figure 1 Bukit Tarek Experimental Watershed Kerling Selangor

from September 2000 to December 2003 was considered asthe period after forest logging

This area is dominated bymetamorphic rock fromArena-ceous series with silt sediment which was formed in TriassicEra [15] Some slopes in these catchments can reach up to 40∘as a result of metamorphic process in this area with strongforces from both W-SW directions [16 17]

22 Hydrological Observation Runoff discharge was mea-sured at the 120-degree V-notch weir at the stream outletof catchment Weir flow rate was continuously monitoredusing the float-type water level instruments (C1 StevenRecorder Chart C3 W-021 Yokogawa Japan) and capacitivewater level sensor (C1 and C3 WT-HR TruTrack NZ) Thedischarge was calculated using rating table for discharge-stage relationships Rainfalls were measured by a standardmanual storage rain gauge and a tipping bucket rain gaugenear the weirs Automatic tipping bucket rain gauge by OtaKeiki Seisakusho (sn 689012) with bucket capacity sensitivityof 05mmtip and receiver diameter is 200mm plusmn 03 Rainfallevents were defined as a rain amount captured gt05mmwithno periods of rainfall of more than 6 hours from the lastrainfall events

23 Analysis Theaverage daily discharges of years 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 and 2007 wereused to determine the water yields based on the water yearsin Malaysia which starts from July of each year to June inthe following year Water year also known as hydrologicyear which is from 1 July to 30 June of the following yearis the period for the southern hemisphere It is based onany twelve-month period usually selected to begin and endduring a relative dry season and used as a basis for processingstreamflow and other hydrological data The year from 1 July2006 to 30 June 2007 is called the 2007 water year














119899


119899

= sum119899

119894=1

119875119894

119894 where 119875119894




119888

was as follows

119905119888

=

093 (11987106

) (11987306

)

(11989404) (11987803) (1)




119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883 + 1205733

1198633

119883

+ 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(2)


1198632


1198633


1198634


(3)

and 120572119894

and 120573119894




Water year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007P (mm) 21672 28980 31770 27070 25070 33858 28860 34747

C1Q (mm) 6317

(291)12769(441)

17256(543)

15542(574)

10518(420)

18592(549) NA 20217

(582)

ET (mm) 15355(709)

16211(559)

14514(457)

11528(426)

14552(580)

15266(451) NA 13285

(418)

C3Q (mm) 4187

(193)10050(347)

14900(469)

15576(575)

8455(337)

13523(399)

12171(422)

21339(614)

ET (mm) 17485(807)

18930(653)

16870(531)

11494(425)

16615(663)

20335(601)

16689(578)

12163(386)



119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883

+ 1205733

1198633

119883 + 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(4)

where 1205721


1205723

and 1205724



2

1205733

and 1205734













00

1997199819992000

200120022003

Recovery

PlantingCalibration

2 4 6 8 10 12

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clea

r-cu

t (N

ov1999

ndashAug

2000

)

times104

times104

Cum

dai

ly d

ischa

rge i

nC3

(Lsminus

1km

minus2)












119888


119901


119901





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

WetDryWetdry

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 1193x minus 41193 R2 = 0955

y = 1135x minus 60241

R2 = 0939

P lt 30mm

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 0881x minus 19484 R2 = 0909

y = 0881x minus 40315

R2 = 0946

WetDryWetdry

P lt 30mm

(b)




119888





C1 (119899 = 25) 420 60 285 350 14 109 470 105 240C3 (119899 = 33) 540 120 274 237 15 62 281 84 141



30


30



30




0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)




119901




119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics



























119899


119899

= sum119899

119894=1

119875119894

119894 where 119875119894




119888

was as follows

119905119888

=

093 (11987106

) (11987306

)

(11989404) (11987803) (1)




119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883 + 1205733

1198633

119883

+ 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(2)


1198632


1198633


1198634


(3)

and 120572119894

and 120573119894




Water year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007P (mm) 21672 28980 31770 27070 25070 33858 28860 34747

C1Q (mm) 6317

(291)12769(441)

17256(543)

15542(574)

10518(420)

18592(549) NA 20217

(582)

ET (mm) 15355(709)

16211(559)

14514(457)

11528(426)

14552(580)

15266(451) NA 13285

(418)

C3Q (mm) 4187

(193)10050(347)

14900(469)

15576(575)

8455(337)

13523(399)

12171(422)

21339(614)

ET (mm) 17485(807)

18930(653)

16870(531)

11494(425)

16615(663)

20335(601)

16689(578)

12163(386)



119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883

+ 1205733

1198633

119883 + 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(4)

where 1205721


1205723

and 1205724



2

1205733

and 1205734













00

1997199819992000

200120022003

Recovery

PlantingCalibration

2 4 6 8 10 12

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clea

r-cu

t (N

ov1999

ndashAug

2000

)

times104

times104

Cum

dai

ly d

ischa

rge i

nC3

(Lsminus

1km

minus2)












119888


119901


119901





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

WetDryWetdry

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 1193x minus 41193 R2 = 0955

y = 1135x minus 60241

R2 = 0939

P lt 30mm

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 0881x minus 19484 R2 = 0909

y = 0881x minus 40315

R2 = 0946

WetDryWetdry

P lt 30mm

(b)




119888





C1 (119899 = 25) 420 60 285 350 14 109 470 105 240C3 (119899 = 33) 540 120 274 237 15 62 281 84 141



30


30



30




0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)




119901




119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics
















Water year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007P (mm) 21672 28980 31770 27070 25070 33858 28860 34747

C1Q (mm) 6317

(291)12769(441)

17256(543)

15542(574)

10518(420)

18592(549) NA 20217

(582)

ET (mm) 15355(709)

16211(559)

14514(457)

11528(426)

14552(580)

15266(451) NA 13285

(418)

C3Q (mm) 4187

(193)10050(347)

14900(469)

15576(575)

8455(337)

13523(399)

12171(422)

21339(614)

ET (mm) 17485(807)

18930(653)

16870(531)

11494(425)

16615(663)

20335(601)

16689(578)

12163(386)



119884 = 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ (1205731

+ 1205732

1198632

+ 1205733

1198633

+ 1205734

1198634

)119883 + 119890

= 1205721

+ 1205722

1198632

+ 1205723

1198633

+ 1205724

1198634

+ 1205731

119883 + 1205732

1198632

119883

+ 1205733

1198633

119883 + 1205734

1198634

119883 + 119890

(4)

where 1205721


1205723

and 1205724



2

1205733

and 1205734













00

1997199819992000

200120022003

Recovery

PlantingCalibration

2 4 6 8 10 12

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clea

r-cu

t (N

ov1999

ndashAug

2000

)

times104

times104

Cum

dai

ly d

ischa

rge i

nC3

(Lsminus

1km

minus2)












119888


119901


119901





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

WetDryWetdry

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 1193x minus 41193 R2 = 0955

y = 1135x minus 60241

R2 = 0939

P lt 30mm

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 0881x minus 19484 R2 = 0909

y = 0881x minus 40315

R2 = 0946

WetDryWetdry

P lt 30mm

(b)




119888





C1 (119899 = 25) 420 60 285 350 14 109 470 105 240C3 (119899 = 33) 540 120 274 237 15 62 281 84 141



30


30



30




0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)




119901




119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















00

1997199819992000

200120022003

Recovery

PlantingCalibration

2 4 6 8 10 12

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clea

r-cu

t (N

ov1999

ndashAug

2000

)

times104

times104

Cum

dai

ly d

ischa

rge i

nC3

(Lsminus

1km

minus2)












119888


119901


119901





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

WetDryWetdry

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 1193x minus 41193 R2 = 0955

y = 1135x minus 60241

R2 = 0939

P lt 30mm

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 0881x minus 19484 R2 = 0909

y = 0881x minus 40315

R2 = 0946

WetDryWetdry

P lt 30mm

(b)




119888





C1 (119899 = 25) 420 60 285 350 14 109 470 105 240C3 (119899 = 33) 540 120 274 237 15 62 281 84 141



30


30



30




0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)




119901




119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

WetDryWetdry

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 1193x minus 41193 R2 = 0955

y = 1135x minus 60241

R2 = 0939

P lt 30mm

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stor

mflo

w Q

F (m

m)

Rainfall (mm)

y = 0881x minus 19484 R2 = 0909

y = 0881x minus 40315

R2 = 0946

WetDryWetdry

P lt 30mm

(b)




119888





C1 (119899 = 25) 420 60 285 350 14 109 470 105 240C3 (119899 = 33) 540 120 274 237 15 62 281 84 141



30


30



30




0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)




119901




119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Datetime

1700 1900 2100Jul19

2300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(a)

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

Datetime

1500 1700Oct15

1900

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

(b)

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Datetime

2100 1500

Nov14

2100300 900

Nov15

300

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(c)

0

5

10

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Datetime

1600 2000 2400Dec8

400Dec9

Rain

fall

(mm

6m

inminus1)

C1C3

Disc

harg

e ha

minus1)

(Lsminus

1

(d)




119901




119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics
















119884 = 0043 + 2151198632

+ 2211198633

+ 6031198634

+ 137119883

+ 1401198632

119883 minus 01481198633

119883 + 01821198634

119883 + 119890

(5)


(119875 lt 005) 1198634

(119875 lt 0001) 119883 (119875 lt 0001) and1198632


119883 (119875 =0641) and 119863

4



4

(119875 lt 0001)1198632

119883 (119875 lt 0001) 1198634

119883 (119875 lt 005) and 1198633


119884 = 2111198633

+ 6071198634

+ 126119883 + 2021198632

119883 + 02901198634

119883 + 119890

(6)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9C1

C3


y = 126x (D2 = D3 = D4 = 0)

y = 328x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 126 + 211x (D3 = 1 D2 = D4 = 0)

y = 155x + 607 (D4 = 1 D2 = D3 = 0)

haminus1)

(Lsminus

1

haminus1)(L sminus1





4 Conclusions











Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics






















Acknowledgments


References








































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics


































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics














Research Article Influence of Plantation Establishment on...

Documents

Transcript of Research Article Influence of Plantation Establishment on...