Abstract
Response: Commentary: What We Know About Stemflow's Infiltration Area
Highlights
In Van Stan and Allen (2020), we reviewed the existing set of observations on stemflow infiltration areas and concluded that inadequate data exist to falsify any generalizable hypotheses on stemflow’s infiltration area (IT)
Regardless, while Carlyle-Moses et al (2020) model is a hypothetically reasonable approach, we continue to advocate against blurring the lines between empirically observed IT and estimated IT
Several additional data points that Carlyle-Moses et al (2020) included in their table are derived from observed stemflow rates and hypothesized infiltration processes, and they are fundamentally different from those previously reviewed in VS&A
Summary
In Van Stan and Allen (2020), we reviewed the existing set of observations on stemflow infiltration areas and concluded that inadequate data exist to falsify any generalizable hypotheses on stemflow’s infiltration area (IT). Van Stan and Allen (2020) concluded that too few observations exist to rigorously test such a model, and those observations that do exist would mostly not pertain to natural systems.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
