Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313

A first-order closure model for the wind flow within

and above vegetation canopies
Pingtong Zeng , Hidenori Takahashi
Laboratory of Geoecology, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan
Received 18 March 1999; accepted 11 January 2000

Abstract
A first-order closure model that has the general utility for predicting the wind flow within and above vegetation canopies
is presented. Parameterization schemes that took into account the influence of large turbulent eddies were developed for the
Reynolds stress and the mixing length in the model. The results predicted by the model were compared with measured data for
wind speeds within and above six types of vegetation canopy, including agricultural crops, deciduous and coniferous forests,
and a rubber tree plantation during fully leafed, partially leafed and leafless periods. The predicted results agreed well with
the measured data; the root-mean-square errors in the predicted wind speeds (non-dimensionalized by the friction velocity
above the canopy) were about 0.2 or less for all of the canopies. The secondary wind maxima that occurred in the lower
canopies were also correctly predicted. The influence of foliage density on the wind profiles within and above a vegetation
canopy was successfully simulated by the model for a rubber tree plantation during fully leafed, partially leafed and leafless
periods. The bulk momentum transfer coefficients (CM ) and the values of (which are defined by z0 =(hd), where z0
is the roughness and d is the zero-displacement height of the canopy) for the vegetation canopies were also studied, and
the relationships CMh =0.0618 exp(0.792CF ) and =0.209 exp(0.414CF ) were determined; here, CMh is the bulk momentum
transfer coefficient at the canopy top; CF =Cd PAI zmax /h, where Cd is the effective drag coefficient of the canopy, PAI is the
plant area index and zmax is the height at which the plant area density is maximum. The values of ranged from 0.22 to 0.32
for the canopies studied. 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Numerical model; Wind velocity; Vegetation canopy; Reynolds stress; Mixing length; Turbulent eddy

1. Introduction been developed. However, accurate prediction of wind

Wind is an important factor for scalar fluxes (heat,
water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) and movements of
spores, pollen and particles within a vegetation canopy.
Information about the wind flow within the vegeta-
tion canopy is important in meteorological, agricul-
tural and ecological studies. A number of numerical
models for predicting the vegetation wind flow have
Corresponding author. Fax: +81-11-706-4867.
E-mail address: sht@ees.hokudai.ac.jp (P. Zeng)
flow is difficult due to the complexity in the array of
vegetation elements (leaves, branches and so on) and
the complex process of air momentum transport within
a vegetation canopy. Early modeling studies (e.g. In-
oue, 1963; Cowan, 1968; Thom, 1971) were based on
the K-theory or gradient-diffusion theory; that is, the
momentum flux is equal to the product of an eddy
viscosity and the local gradient of mean wind ve-
locity. Wilson and Shaw (1977) (hereafter WS) point
out that a K-theory model provides little insight into
the nature of momentum transport processes within

0168-1923/00/$ see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 1 9 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 3 3 - 7
302 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
the vegetation canopy. Moreover, Pereira and Shaw
(1980) and Watanabe and Kondo (1990) (hereafter
WK) show that such a model can not provide accurate
predictions of wind velocity in the lower portion of
a plant canopy, where a near-zero vertical gradient of
mean wind velocity or a wind velocity bulge is fre-
quently observed (Shaw, 1977). In another approach,
WS proposed a higher-order (second-order) closure
model in which turbulent kinetic energy equations and
Reynolds stress equation were solved simultaneously
with that for mean momentum. However, WS reported
that the calculated velocity profile was sensitive to the
parameterization scheme for the turbulent transport
 hui i hpi ij
term in their model. In order to avoid the deficiency
in the model of WS, Meyers and Paw (1986) (here-
after MP) developed a third-order closure model using
third-order closure principles. However, the utility of a
higher-order closure model is still limited. The model
proposed by MP includes about 10 equations for only
a one-dimensional problem, and the computation cost
is therefore high. In addition, their modeled results for
the turbulent field have large errors (MP; Meyers and
Baldocchi, 1991). The parameterization schemes for
higher-order closure models used for predicting veg-
etation wind flow need to be further improved (MP;
Shaw and Seginer, 1987; Wilson, 1988).
As an alternative approach that does not use
higher-order closure principles, Li et al. (1985) pro-
posed a non-local closure scheme for the total mo-
mentum flux (Reynolds stress and dispersive flux)
and developed a first-order closure model that was
capable of predicting the wind velocity peaks in lower
canopies. However, several problems in their model
have been pointed out by Van Pul and Van Boxel
(1990). To correct these problems, Miller et al. (1991)
(hereafter MLL) made some modifications to their
model and applied it to wind flow across an alpine
forest clearing. However, the utility of their model for
different types of vegetation canopy was not tested.
Over the past few decades, extensive measurements
(e.g. Raupach et al., 1986; Shaw et al., 1988; Gao
et al., 1989) of turbulent flows within and above vege-
tation canopies have been carried out. On the basis
of the results of the previous studies, the purpose of
the present study is to develop a first-order closure
model, which is simple in computation and has the
general utility for predicting wind flow within and
above vegetation canopies, and to investigate the in-
fluences of canopy structure and foliage density on
the wind velocities within and above the canopies.
2. Theory and the model
2.1. Governing equation
Following Raupach et al. (1986), under neutrally
buoyant conditions, the time- and volume-averaged
equation for the mean momentum within vegetation is
hui i
+ uj = + +fFi + fVi (1)
t xj xi xj
with
hui i
ij = hu0i u0j i hu00i w 00j i + (2)
xj
Here, i and j are index notations (with values of 13)
and Einsteins summation is used. The overbars and
single primes denote time averages and fluctuations,
while the angle brackets and double primes denote
spatial volume averages and departures therefrom, re-
spectively. ui and xi are velocity and position vec-
tors, respectively, t the time, p the kinematic pressure,
fFi and fVi are form and viscous drag force vectors
exerted on a unit mass of air within the averaging
volume, respectively, ij the volume-averaged kine-
matic momentum flux or stress tensor, and is the
kinematic viscosity. Interpretations of each term in
the above equations have been described by Raupach
et al. (1986).
For a horizontal homogeneous vegetation, let u and
w represent the streamwise and vertical velocity, re-
spectively, the x-coordinate in the mean streamwise
direction, and the z-coordinate normal to the ground;
assuming steady-state conditions and neglecting the
pressure gradient and molecular transport terms, Eq.
(1) becomes
d  0 0 
hu w i + hu00 w 00 i = fx (3)
dz
In this equation, hu0 w0 i is the Reynolds stress or tur-
bulent flux of momentum, while hu00 w 00 i represents
the dispersive flux that arises from the spatial corre-
lation of regions of mean updraft or downdraft with
regions, where u differs from its spatial mean, and
 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
fx (= fF1 + fV1 ) is the total streamwise drag per unit
mass of air within the averaging volume. These terms
must be parameterized in order to solve the equation
and estimate the wind velocity hui.
2.2. Closure schemes
2.2.1. Reynolds stress
In K-theory models, the Reynolds stress is param-
eterized as
d hui
hu0 w 0 i = KM (4)
dz
where KM is the eddy viscosity. This model shows that
the turbulent flux of momentum results from the local
gradient in the mean wind velocity. Hence, it is also
called a small-eddy closure technique (Stull, 1988).
K-theory models have been widely used for studies
in the surface layer and have been proven to be reli-
able for the inertial sublayer above a surface (Raupach
et al., 1980). However, Corrsin (1974) has pointed out
that the application of K-theory is limited to the place
where the length scales of flux-carrying motions have
to be much smaller than the scales associated with
average gradients. It is unfortunate that such a condi-
tion is often violated within vegetation canopies (Rau-
pach and Thom, 1981; Baldocchi and Meyers, 1988b).
Many measurements have shown that wind flow within
and just above a plant canopy is dominated by turbu-
lence with vertical length scales at least as large as the
vegetation height (Kaimal and Finnigan, 1994). These
large-scale turbulent eddies are intermittent and ener-
getic, and they can penetrate the canopy crowns and
enter the subcanopy trunk space to generate non-local
turbulent transport. Most of the transport of momen-
tum and scalar properties within the canopy are gen-
erated by these large-scale turbulent eddies (Raupach
et al., 1986; Baldocchi and Meyers, 1988a). Baldoc-
chi and Meyers (1988b) report that the Reynolds stress
within a plant canopy is influenced not only by the
product of KM and the local vertical gradient in the
mean wind velocity but also by the non-local turbulent
transport through the activities of large-scale eddies.
Based on the results obtained from previous studies,
the turbulent momentum flux is divided into two parts
in the present study: one diffused by the smaller-scale
eddies, which depends on the local gradient of the
mean wind velocity; and the other transported by the
303
larger-scale eddies, which is determined by the mean
wind speed differences between heights with large dis-
tance. Hence, the Reynolds stress is parameterized by
d hui z
hu0 w0 i = K + Cg hur i (hur i hui) (5)
dz h
where K is the eddy viscosity, h the vegetation height,
ur the wind velocity at a reference height above the
vegetation, and Cg is a coefficient. On the right-hand
side of the equation, the first term (defined as Rs ),
which has been formed according to the conventional
K-theory, is responsible for small-eddy diffusion,
and the second term (defined as Rl ) is responsible
for non-local transport. Since non-local transport is
caused by the shear between the wind flows above and
within the canopy, we used hur i hui to represent the
intensity of the shear. hur i outside of the parentheses
was used to account for the intensity of the wind flow
above the canopy. As it is easier for turbulent eddies
to penetrate into a sparse canopy than into a dense
canopy (Shaw et al., 1988), the coefficient Cg in the
equation is defined to be a function of the integrated
plant area density and is expressed by
 Z h 
Cg = C1 exp C2 Cd A dz (6)
z
where A is the plant area density (m1 ), Cd the ef-
fective drag coefficient of the plant elements, and C1
and C2 are constants that are determined by numerical
experiments. The second term in Eq. (5) is an addi-
tional term that we have introduced. This term is sim-
ilar to the term that represents dispersive flux in the
model proposed by MLL, but instead of Cg defined in
the present study, MLL used a constant coefficient. In
the present study, we have not use the constant coef-
ficient proposed by MLL because we believe that the
momentum transported by large eddies is modified by
the structure of a canopy. Results of the numerical ex-
periments revealed that wind velocities predicted by
MLLs model are very sensitive to the selected values
of the coefficient, and we failed to find a universal
constant that can produce correct predictions for the
wind velocities in canopies with different structures.
Although there is little information about the disper-
sive flux in a real vegetation canopy, a wind-tunnel
study using a model canopy (Raupach et al., 1986) has
shown that the amount of dispersive flux is very small
304 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
and negligible compared with the amount of turbu-
lent flux. In addition, wind velocities within vegetation
canopies have been successfully predicted by WS and
MP, who used higher-order closure models in which
a term of dispersive flux is not included. Therefore,
dispersive flux is considered to be negligible and was
omitted in the present study.
2.2.2. Mixing length
The eddy viscosity K is parameterized according to
the Prandtlvon Krmn mixing-length theory
by MLL, which is a function of z and the total leaf
area in the portion below d and does not reflect the
effect of local canopy structure.
2.2.3. Drag force
The drag of plant elements fx is parameterized ac-
cording to WS
fx = Cd A hui2 (10)
This parameterization scheme has been widely used
  in studies on wind flow within a vegetation canopy
 
2  d hui  (e.g. MP; WK; Wang and Takle, 1996). The effective
K=l  (7)
dz  drag coefficient (Cd ) of a single leaf measured in wind
where l is the mixing length. Above the vegetation
canopy surface, the mixing length is expressed as
l = (z d), zh (8)
where is the von Krmns constant equal to 0.4,
and d is the zero-plane displacement (m). The mix-
ing length within a canopy is complicated due to the
effects of canopy elements. In conventional K-theory
models, Inoue (1963) suggested that l is constant
throughout the canopy layer, while Seginer (1974),
Kondo and Akashi (1976) and WK considered l to
be constrained by the ground surface and the local
internal structure of the canopy and defined it as a
function of the local plant area density, drag coeffi-
cient and height. As the conventional K-theory model
is used in the present model to represent only the
small-eddy diffusion within the canopy, the definition
of mixing length within the canopy in the present
model is different from that in conventional K-theory
models. However, the effects of ground surface and
canopy structure pointed out by Seginer (1974) and
other researchers will be qualitatively the same. In
addition, it is considered that the value of l within
the canopy can not be larger than that at the canopy
top lh (= (h d) according to Eq. (8)). Thus, the
mixing length within the canopy is parameterized as
z present study. The computation grid included 60 equal
l= (9)
1 + Cl Cd Az
with
l (h d), z<h
where Cl is a constant determined by numerical ex-
periments. This model is different from that proposed
tunnel changes with the leaf orientation and turbu-
lent scales and intensity around the leaf (Raupach and
Thom, 1981). However, MP reported that the value of
Cd of a vegetation canopy is a constant, i.e. it does
not depend on wind speed and the position within the
canopy.
3. Numerical aspects
The selected reference height for the reference wind
speed hur i is twice the vegetation height. This selec-
tion is based on measurements showing that there is
a roughness sublayer within which the eddy viscos-
ity is found to be enhanced and the semi-logarithmic
law is not obeyed over a rough surface (e.g. Garrat,
1978; Raupach et al., 1980; Simpson et al., 1998).
Three new parameters are introduced in the present
model: C1 and C2 in Eq. (6) and Cl in Eq. (9). The
values of these three parameters were firstly fitted to
be 0.01, 1.0 and 5.0, respectively, by using the corn
canopy data, but C2 was adjusted to 2.0 in the simula-
tions for the rubber canopy data. Variations in C2 only
affect the modeled wind profile at the lower canopy.
The final values of 0.01, 2.0 and 5.0 for C1 , C2 and
Cl , respectively, were used for all the canopies in the
intervals from the ground surface to three times the
vegetation height. All variables in the model were
non-dimensionalized by scales of h and the wind speed
at 3h height. Non-dimensional wind speed was given
by 1 at the upper boundary and 0 at zg /h=0.001, where
zg is the roughness length of the ground surface. Ex-
perimental results showed that the solution was not
 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313 305

sensitive to the chosen of the value zg . The initial wind

profile was assumed, and the solution was found iter-
atively until the differences in the computed hui were
less than the control level (104 in this study).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Wind profiles in various types of vegetation

canopy

Wind speeds were predicted by the present model

within and above six types of vegetation canopy, which
included agricultural crops, and deciduous and conif-
erous forests with leaf area indices (LAI) from about
two to near seven and vegetation heights from about
1 m to more than 20 m (Table 1). The predicted and
measured wind-speed profiles ranging from ground
surface to twice the canopy height for three canopies
and to three times the canopy height for the other three
canopies, are shown together with the distributions of
plant area density (PAD) in Fig. 1. The measured wind
profiles in the pine and oakhickory forests were av-
erages. The leaf area density of the pine forest was
the average of pine A and pine B in Amiro (1990a),
and the tree height of 18.5 m was used in the present
study, which was based on the reported tree height
of 1520 m for the pine forest. Though the measured
wind profiles within and above the canopies show large
differences according to the species and structure of
the canopies, the predicted wind profiles matched them
excellently. The measured wind profiles in most of Fig. 1. Comparison of predicted (solid lines) and measured (circles)
the canopies show small gradients or slight reversals wind speeds within and above six types of vegetation canopy.
Vertical distributions of plant area density (PAD, dashed lines) are
also shown. Wind profiles ranging to 2h (h is vegetation height) are
Table 1 shown for corn, pine and oakhickory canopies, and those ranging
List of vegetation canopies and the references. Oakhickory and to 3h are shown for wheat, bean and aspenmaple canopies. u is
aspenmaple are mixed deciduous forests with principal species the friction velocity above the canopy.
of oak and hickory, and aspen and maple, respectivelya
Vegetation h (m) LAI References in gradient in the lower portion of the canopies, and
canopies
an obvious secondary maximum can be seen in the
Corn 2.8 3 Wilson and Shaw (1977) oakhickory canopy. K-theory models are incapable
Pine 18.5 2.3 Amiro (1990a) of predicting these features. The present model suc-
Oakhickory 23 4.9 Meyers and Baldocchi (1991)
Bean 1.18 6.3 Thom (1971)
cessfully demonstrated these features, revealing that
Wheat 1.25 6.6 Legg (1975a, b) the non-local transport was accurately considered in
Aspenmaple 18 5 Neumann et al., (1989); the model. It was revealed by the present model that
Gao et al. (1989) though the small-eddy diffusion Rs was near zero or
a h is the vegetation height, and LAI is the leaf area index. even upwardly transported the momentum when the
306 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
gradient of mean wind was reversed, the non-local
transport Rl was large and maintained the Reynolds
stress in the lower canopies (see also Section 4.4).
Shaw (1977) has pointed out that the mean wind gra-
dient will be reversed if the non-local turbulent trans-
port momentum is large enough in the lower portion
of a vegetation canopy, i.e.
 
w 0 u0 w 0  0 
u w0
> p0 + Aspenmaple
z z x
He also suggested that in the region where there is a re-
versal in mean wind gradient, larger scales of turbulent
motion transport momentum downward, while smaller
scales transport momentum upward according to the
local gradient. Very strong wind shear appears near the
canopy top in two deciduous canopies (oakhickory
and aspenmaple canopies) because there are very
dense foliage layers at the upper portion of these two
canopies. The foliage is also very dense at the upper
portion of the bean canopy, but the wind shear is not
as large as that in the deciduous canopies, because
the drag coefficient of the bean canopy is very small
(Table 3). The wind speed within the wheat canopy,
which has the greatest foliage density, is very low. The
predicted wind profile within the pine canopy is also
very similar to those measured in other pine forests
that have similar distributions of foliage densities (e.g.
Allen, 1968; Halldin and Lindroth, 1986).
Shaw and Pereira (1982) reported that the wind pro-
file predicted by their second-order closure model was
not logarithmic immediately above the canopy sur-
face. However, many researchers have observed loga-
rithmic or near-logarithmic wind profiles above many
vegetation canopies (e.g. Thom, 1971; Oliver, 1971;
Dolman, 1986). Fig. 1 shows that the predicted and
measured wind profiles above the bean canopy are al-
most the same. The measured profiles were the profiles
of DF in Fig. 7 of the report by Thom (1971), which
were reported to be logarithmic above the canopy.
The wind profile above a canopy computed by the
present model is approximately logarithmic because
the non-local transfer (Rl ) is small above a canopy (see
also Section 4.4). The roughness sublayer over a plant
canopy is believed to be shallow (e.g. Simpson et al.,
1998) except in cases where the canopy is very sparse
(e.g. Garrat, 1978). In order to predict the wind profile
above the canopy, a correct value for the zero-plane
Table 2
Mean errors in predicted wind speeds (non-dimensionalized by
the friction velocity above the canopy)
Vegetation Root-mean- Mean absolute Mean
canopies square errors errors errors
Corn 0.203 0.168 0.074
Pine 0.126 0.114 0.020
Oakhickory 0.205 0.171 0.106
Bean 0.163 0.138 0.010
Wheat 0.135 0.098 0.039
0.233 0.168 0.026
displacement (d) is needed. This value is estimated by
the model based on an additional input value of mea-
sured wind speed above the canopy. Experimental re-
sults showed that the predicted wind profile within the
canopy was not sensitive to the choice value of d if d
is lower than 0.85 h.
Predicted results according to higher-closure mod-
els (e.g. MP; Shaw and Seginer, 1987; Meyers and
Baldocchi, 1991) often show larger errors near the
canopy top, where strong shear in the flow field
occurs. The present model does not have this prob-
lem. Table 2 shows the mean, mean absolute and
root-mean-square errors in predicted results calcu-
lated by comparing predicted and measured values.
The largest root-mean-square error is 0.23 (for the
oakhickory canopy), and other root-mean-square
errors are 0.2 or less. The mean absolute errors are
smaller than 0.2, and the mean errors are almost zero
for all canopies. MP compared their predicted results
by using a higher-order closure model with measured
data for six canopies (in which corn and bean canopies
were the same as those used in the present study).
Their root-mean-square errors were larger than 0.2 for
most canopies, and the largest error was 0.54; these
values were larger than those in the present study.
In the present study, triangular distributions for the
plant area density were used to approximate the ob-
served distributions for all of the canopies except the
aspenmaple canopy. This technique has been used by
Pereira and Shaw (1980), who reported that the wind
profile for a corn canopy (the same corn canopy as that
used in the present study) calculated by the triangular
distribution was virtually indistinguishable from that
calculated using the observed distribution. The data
of observed plant area density of a vegetation canopy
generally shows great scattering. The good agreement
 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313 307

Table 3
0.15, respectively; published values of Cd for these
Comparison of drag coefficients (Cd ) yielded by the present model
and those estimated in other studies two canopies are not available for comparison. The re-
sults of the present study also support the claim made
Vegetation Present Other References
canopies study studies by MP that the use of a constant effective drag coef-
ficient is appropriate for a plant canopy.
Corn 0.20 0.20 Wilson and Shaw (1977)
Pine 0.20 0.10.25 Amiro (1990b)
Oakhickory 0.18 0.15 Lee et al. (1994) 4.2. Influence of foliage density on the wind profile
Bean 0.04 0.030.04 Thom (1971)
Influence of foliage density on the wind profile was
investigated using the data measured in a rubber plan-
between the modeled results and the measured data in tation located in the Hainan Island, China. The rub-
the present study suggests that this technique is use- ber trees were about 12 m in height and the foliage
ful for numerical studies of wind flow within vege- density were estimated from the leaf-fall collections
tation canopies. A beta distribution, which was used and the measured solar radiations. Detailed informa-
by Meyers and Baldocchi (1991), was used for the tion of the instrumentation and site has been described
aspenmaple canopy in the present study. by Takahashi et al. (1986) and Yoshino et al. (1988).
As was the case in the study by MP, a constant Fig. 2 shows the simulated (using the present model)
effective drag coefficient (Cd ) for each canopy was and measured wind profiles in the rubber tree plan-
used in the present study. The effective drag coeffi- tation during fully leafed, partially leafed and leaf-
cient for a vegetation canopy is difficult to measure less periods. The measured profiles were averages in
due to problems of the shelter effect (Thom, 1971) and near-neutral conditions and when the wind direction
leaf orientation. In numerical studies, it is usually de- was ESE, in which the effect of the surrounding wind-
termined by trial-and-error to produce the best agree- breaks was smallest and the fetch was the longest. The
ment with observations. The effective drag coefficient plant area indices (PAIs) during the three periods were
for each canopy in the present study was determined about 5, 3 and 1, respectively.
by trial-and-error. Table 3 shows a comparison of the Again, the simulated results agreed with the mea-
values of Cd yielded by the present model and those sured data excellently; the root-mean-square errors
estimated in other studies for the same canopies. It were less than 0.2, and the mean errors were almost
is shown that those yielded by the present model are zero for the canopy during the three periods. As can
almost the same as or within the range of those es- be seen in the figure, the wind profiles change little
timated in other studies. The values of Cd used for in form during the three periods, because there was
the wheat and aspenmaple canopies were 0.12 and little change in the distribution patterns of the PAD

Fig. 2. Simulated (solid lines) and measured (circles) wind profiles in the rubber tree plantation during (a) fully leafed, (b) partially leafed
and (c) leafless periods. Profiles of PAD are shown by dashed lines.
308 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
of the rubber trees during the three periods. How-
ever, the normalized wind speed (u/u ) within the
canopy increases as the foliage density decreases,
because it is easier for momentum to penetrate the
canopy from above the canopy if the canopy is thin.
Although the PAI decreased about five-fold from the
fully leafed to leafless periods, the normalized wind
speed within the leafless canopy, except that at the
very upper portion of the canopy, increased less than
two-fold. This discrepancy can be explained by the
effect of the effective drag coefficient. Seginer et al.
(1976) has shown, from the results of wind-tunnel
experiments, that the effective drag coefficient of a
dense canopy is smaller than that of a thin canopy.
The effective drag coefficients used by the model for
the fully leafed and leafless canopies were 0.15 and
0.36, respectively, showing that the effective drag co-
efficient of tree branches in a fully leafed canopy is
smaller than that in a leafless canopy. The same fact
was also found by Sato (personal communication) in
his studies on wind flow through windbreaks. Each
of the three wind profiles showed a weak secondary
wind maximum in the lower portion of the canopy
because the trunk space of the rubber plantation was
very open. The wind profiles are near logarithmic
above the three canopies, and the slope of the wind
profile during fully leafed period is larger than that
during leafless period. These findings are consistent
with those observed above a Japanese larch forest
(Allen, 1968) and an oak forest (Dolman, 1986).
Fig. 3. Variation in the bulk momentum transfer coefficients at the canopy top (CMh ) vs. (a) CD (=Cd PAI) and (b) CF (=Cd PAI zmax /h)
for nine vegetation canopies.
4.3. Bulk momentum transfer coefficients
It can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2 that values of the
normalized velocities u/u (u is the friction velocity
above the canopy) at the top of all the canopy tops are
very similar, but changes of them according to the type
of canopy are discernible. The same phenomenon was
also shown by MP. If the normalized velocity above
the canopy is inverted and squared, it becomes the bulk
momentum transfer coefficient CM , which is defined
as
= u2 = CM u2 (11)
where is the shear stress, the air density, u the fric-
tion velocity, and u is the mean wind speed at a height
above the vegetation. CM is also called drag coeffi-
cient by some researchers. Dolman (1986) showed that
CM above an oak forest was about two-times larger
on foliated conditions than that on defoliated condi-
tions. On the other hand, WK showed that CM over a
rice canopy was scattered in a wide range over peri-
ods with differing leaf area indices. It is probable that
the variations in the CM above a vegetation canopy do
not depend only on the foliage density of the canopy.
Fig. 3a shows the variations in the CM at the canopy
top versus Cd PAI, where PAI is the plant area index,
for the nine canopies, which used in the above two sec-
tions, according to the modeled results. Although the
values of CM are scattered at large values of Cd PAI,
 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
there is a clear tendency for CM to increase as Cd PAI
increases. Furthermore, when the variations in CM are
plotted against Cd PAI zmax /h, where zmax is the height
at which the plant area density is maximum, a good
correlation between them is revealed (Fig. 3b). Shaw
and Pereira (1982) have shown that zmax is an impor-
tant factor in determining the aerodynamic roughness
of a plant canopy. The value of Cd PAI zmax /h is small-
est (0.146) in the case of the leafless rubber planta-
tion canopy. It seems that Cd PAI zmax /h can accurately
represent the momentum absorption ability of a vege-
tation canopy. Let
CD Cd PAI, (12)
zmax
CF CD (13)
h for the values of and CF for the nine canopies showed
and CMh represent the bulk momentum transfer coef-
ficient at the canopy top, then the fitting-curve for the
nine canopies in Fig. 3b is expressed as
CMh = 0.0618 exp(0.792CF ) (14)
and the correlation coefficient was equal to 0.889. Us-
ing a K-theory model, WK predicted that CM increased
with an increase in CD when CD <0.3, but it decreased
with an increase in CD when CD increased further for
a rice canopy. However, their prediction was not sup-
ported well by the measured data.
If the logarithmic law is obeyed above a canopy
surface, the wind profile above the canopy surface is
expressed as
 
u zd
u= ln (15)
z0
where z0 is the roughness of the canopy surface. Thom
(1971) suggested that
z0 = (h d) (16)
where h is the canopy height, and the value of was
estimated to be 0.36 for an artificial crop. Seginer
(1974) estimated the value of to be 0.37 on the basis
of the canopy wind model of Inoue (1963) and an ob-
servation by Kondo (1971). However, the value of
was estimated by Moore (1974) to be 0.26 according
to 105 published d, z0 and h data, and it was also es-
timated by Shaw and Pereira (1982) to be 0.26 (when
CD >0.2) on the basis of results of numerical experi-
309
ments using a higher-order closure model. From Eq.
(15), we can get
1
z0 = (h d) (17)
exp((uh /u ))
where uh is the mean wind speed at the canopy top.
From Eqs. (11), (16) and (17) we find that
1 1
= = (18)
exp((uh /u )) exp( CMh )
Thus, is a function of CMh , also changes with CF
(according to Eq. (14)), and is not a constant when
CF >0.2. It was difficult to obtain a simple expression
for the relationship between and CF from Eqs. (14)
and (18). However, the results of least-squares analysis
that
= 0.209 exp(0.414CF ) (19)
with the correlation coefficient equaling 0.892. The
values of for the nine canopies ranged from 0.22 (the
bean canopy) to 0.32 (the oakhickory canopy), and
the average for all of the canopies was 0.26, which is
the same value as that obtained by Moore (1974) and
Shaw and Pereira (1982). For comparison, Bruin and
Moore (1985) reported =0.22 for a pine forest (the
Thetford Forest).
4.4. Reynolds stress
The computed Reynolds stress for the corn canopy
showed that more than 80% of the momentum was ab-
sorbed in the upper half of the canopy (Fig. 4), which
was the same as that shown by the measured data. The
computed Reynolds stress decreased to almost zero
near the ground. Though there was no measured data
for comparison in the lower canopy, the modeled re-
sults were almost the same as those showed by WS,
who computed using a higher-order closure model.
Fig. 5 shows the computed profiles of two com-
ponents of the Reynolds stress, Rl and Rs , for the
corn canopy. Though Rs is larger than Rl above the
canopy and in about the upper 70% of the canopy,
it decreases rapidly with height within the canopy,
and it is almost zero in the lower 40% canopy; the
Reynolds stress in the lower portion of the canopy
is maintained by the non-local transport momentum
310 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
Fig. 4. Profile of the computed Reynolds stress (line) and the
measured data (closed circles) for the corn canopy.
Rl . Meyers and Baldocchi (1991) have pointed out
that the shear production, which is generated by the
interaction between the turbulent field and the mean
velocity gradient, is small and turbulence imported
from above the canopy is a strong source for the
turbulent kinetic energy in the lower canopy. Thus,
the present model can account for the phenomena of
counter-gradient momentum transport and secondary
wind maxima that occurs in the lower portions of veg-
etation canopies. Rl peaks at about 0.8h and decreases
above and below this height, and this distribution
pattern is similar to those of the measured hw 0 u0 w 0 i
Fig. 5. Profiles of two components of the Reynolds stress in the
corn canopy: small-eddy diffusion Rs (solid line) and non-local
transfer Rl (dash line).
(non-local transport of the Reynolds stress) in many
canopies (e.g. Shaw and Seginer, 1987; Baldocchi and
Meyers, 1988a, b; Amiro, 1990a). Above the canopy,
Rs is more than three times larger than Rl and is the
main source of the Reynolds stress, implying that the
predicted mean wind profile above the canopy is ap-
proximately logarithmic. For the layer above 2h, the
non-local transfer momentum is parameterized to be
zero in the model. Though only the profiles for the
corn canopy are shown, those for the other canopies
are qualitatively the same.
5. Conclusions
Taking into account the non-local turbulent trans-
port, we have developed a first-order closure model
for predicting the wind flow within and above vege-
tation canopies. The high accuracy and the universal
utility of the model were verified by comparisons of
modeled results and measured data in six types of
vegetation canopy and a rubber tree plantation dur-
ing fully leafed, partially leafed and leafless periods.
The root-mean-square errors in the predicted wind
speeds were about 0.2 or less for all of the canopies;
these errors are smaller than those results from a
higher-order closure model. The wind speeds in the
lower canopies, which appeared to be almost constant
or reversed in gradient, were also correctly predicted.
In addition to its high accuracy and universal utility,
the present model costs little computation time due to
its simplicity. The model would be very useful for the
applications for predicting vegetation wind flows or
scalar fluxes (e.g. heat and water vapor) between the
atmosphere and vegetated surfaces when it is coupled
with other models.
A simulation study on the influence of foliage den-
sity on the wind profiles within and above a vegetation
canopy was performed for a rubber tree plantation
during fully leafed, partially leafed and leafless peri-
ods. The simulated wind profiles within the canopy
changed little in form during the three periods but
that the normalized wind speed (normalized by the
friction velocity above the canopy) within the canopy
increased as the foliage density decreased. The slope
of the wind profile above the fully leafed canopy was
larger than that above the leafless canopy.
 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313 311

Based on the modeled wind speeds using the present p kinematic pressure (Pa)
model, we were able to clarify the effects of canopy PAD plant area density (m2 m3 )
density, structure and effective drag coefficient on the PAI plant area index (m2 m2 )
bulk momentum transfer coefficient and the coefficient Rl non-local momentum transport (m2 s2 )
, and we were also able to determine the correlations Rs small-eddy diffusion (m2 s2 )
between CM and CF and between and CF . t time (s)
The Reynolds stress in the present model was T time average interval (s)
parameterized by two terms: one representing the u streamwise velocity (m s1 )
small-eddy diffusion, and one representing non-local ui wind velocity vector (m s1 )
transport through large-scale turbulent eddies. The ur wind velocity at a reference height
modeled results showed that the non-local transfer (m s1 )
component was small above the canopy but large, and u friction velocity above vegetation
the main source of the Reynolds stress, in the lower canopy (m s1 )
portion of the canopy. The model can also account for hu0 w0 i Reynolds stress (m2 s2 )
counter-gradient momentum transport occurs in the V volume (m3 )
lower portion of a vegetation canopy. A parameteri- w vertical velocity (m s1 )
zation scheme was developed for the mixing length xi position vector (m)
within a canopy. z height (m)
z0 roughness of vegetation surface (m)
zmax the height at which the plant area
6. Nomenclature
density is maximum (m)
A plant area density (m2 m3 )
Greek letters
C1 , C2 , Cl constants equal to 0.01, 2 and 5,
kinematic viscosity of the air (m2 s1 )
respectively
von Karmans constant (equal to 0.4)
CD a coefficient equal to Cd PAI
the coefficient between z0 and
Cd canopy effective drag coefficient
air density (kg m3 )
CF a coefficient defined as Cd PAI zmax /h
shear stress (m2 s2 )
Cg coefficient of non-local momentum
ij kinematic momentum flux (m2 s2 )
transport
a scalar or vector variable
CM bulk momentum transfer coefficient
CMh bulk momentum transfer coefficient at
Other symbols
the canopy top
overbar ( ) time average
d zero plane displacement height (m)
prime ( 0 ) deviation from time average
fx total (form and viscous) streamwise drag
angle brackets h i volume average
force (N)
double prime ( 00 ) deviation from volume average
fF form drag force (N)
fV viscous drag force (N)
h mean vegetation height (m)
i, j index notations, with values of 1, 2 or 3 Acknowledgements
K momentum eddy viscosity (defined in
present study) (m2 s1 ) Micrometeorological measurements in a rubber
KM conventional momentum eddy viscosity plantation were conducted as a part of the project
(m2 s1 ) A Study on the Geoecological Factors of Land Use
l mixing length (m) and Vegetation in the Tropics and Subtropics in the
LAI leaf area index (m2 m2 ) Peoples Republic of China, which was supported by
lh mixing-length at vegetation canopy grants-in-aid from the Japanese Ministry of Educa-
top (m) tion, Science and Culture (leader: Masatoshi Yoshino,
312 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
Nos. 61041012 and 62043011). We are grateful to
Prof. T. Maitani (Okayama University), Mr. T. Sato
(Hokkaido Head Office, Japan Weather Association)
and Mr. Natsume (Hokkaido Institute of Environmen-
tal Science) for their helpful comments. Mr. Natsume
also checked our computing programs.
References
Allen, L.H. Jr., 1968. Turbulence and wind speed spectra within
a Japanese larch plantation. J. Appl. Meteorol. 7, 7378.
Amiro, B.D., 1990a. Comparison of turbulence statistics within
three boreal forest canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 51,
99120.
Amiro, B.D., 1990b. Drag coefficients and turbulence spectra
within three boreal forest canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol.
52, 227246.
Baldocchi, D.D., Meyers, T.P., 1988a. Turbulence structure in a
deciduous forest. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 43, 345364.
Baldocchi, D.D., Meyers, T.P., 1988b. A spectral and
lag-correlation analysis of turbulence in a deciduous forest
canopy. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 45, 3158.
Bruin, H.A.R., Moore, C.J., 1985. Zero-plane displacement and
roughness length for tall vegetation, derived from a simple mass
conservation hypothesis. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 31, 3949.
Corrsin, S., 1974. Limitations of gradient transport model in
random walks and in turbulence. Adv. Geophys. 18A, 2560.
Cowan, I.R., 1968. Mass, heat and momentum exchange between
stands of plants and their atmospheric environment. Quart. J.
R. Meteorol. Soc. 94, 523544.
Dolman, A.J., 1986. Estimates of roughness length and zero plane
displacement for a foliated and non-foliated oak canopy. Agric.
For. Meteorol. 36, 241248.
Gao, W., Shaw, R.H., Paw, U.K.T., 1989. Observation of organized
structure in turbulent flow within and above a forest canopy.
Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 47, 349377.
Garrat, J.R., 1978. Flux-profile relations above tall vegetation.
Quart. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 104, 199211.
Halldin, S., Lindroth, A., 1986. Pine forest microclimate simulation
using different diffusivities. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 35,
103123.
Inoue, E., 1963. On the turbulent structure of air flow within crop
canopies. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 41, 317325.
Kaimal, J.C., Finnigan, J.J., 1994. Atmospheric Boundary Layer
Flows: Their Structure and Measurement. Oxford University
Press, New York, p. 289.
Kondo, J., 1971. Relationship between the roughness coefficient
and other aerodynamic parameters. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 49,
121124.
Kondo, J., Akashi, S., 1976. Numerical studies on the
two-dimensional flow in horizontally homogeneous canopy
layers. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 10, 255272.
Lee, X., Shaw, R.H., Black, T.A., 1994. Modelling the effect of
mean pressure gradient on the mean flow within forests. Agric.
For. Meteorol. 68, 201212.
Legg, B.J., 1975a. Turbulent diffusion within a wheat canopy: I.
Measurement using nitrous oxide. Quart. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.
101, 591610.
Legg, B.J., 1975b. Turbulent diffusion within a wheat canopy:
II. Results and interpretation. Quart. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 101,
611628.
Li, Z.J., Miller, R., Lin, J.D., 1985. A first-order closure scheme
to describe counter-gradient momentum transport in plant
canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 33, 7783.
Meyers, T.P., Baldocchi, D.D., 1991. The budgets of turbulent
kinetic energy and Reynolds stress within and above a deciduous
forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 53, 207222.
Meyers, T.P., Paw, U.K.T., 1986. Testing of a higher-order
closure model for airflow within and above plant canopies.
Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 37, 297311.
Miller, D.R., Lin, J.D., Lu, Z.N., 1991. Air flow across an alpine
forest clearing: a model and field measurements. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 56, 209225.
Moore, C.J., 1974. A comparative study of forest and grassland
micrometeorology. Ph.D. Thesis, The Flinders, University of
South Australia, p. 237.
Neumann, H.H., Den Hartog, G., Shaw, R.H., 1989. Leaf area
measurements based on hemispheric photographs and leaf-letter
collection in a deciduous forest during autumn leaf-fall. Agric.
For. Meteorol. 45, 325345.
Oliver, H.R., 1971. Wind profiles in and above a forest canopy.
Quart. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 548553.
Pereira, A.R., Shaw, R.H., 1980. A numerical experiment on
the mean wind structure inside canopies of vegetation. Agric.
Meteorol. 22, 303318.
Raupach, M.R., Thom, A.S., 1981. Turbulence in and above plant
canopies. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 13, 97129.
Raupach, M.R., Coppin, P.A., Legg, B.J., 1986. Experiments
on scalar dispersion within a model plant canopy: Part I.
The turbulence structure. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 35, 21
52.
Raupach, M.R., Thom, A.S., Edwards, I., 1980. A wind-tunnel
study of turbulent flow close to regularly arrayed rough surfaces.
Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 18, 373397.
Seginer, J., 1974. Aerodynamic roughness of vegetated surfaces.
Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 5, 383393.
Seginer, J., Mulhearn, P.J., Bradley, E.R., Finnigan, J.J., 1976.
Turbulent flow in a model plant canopy. Boundary-Layer
Meteorol. 10, 423453.
Shaw, R.H., 1977. Secondary wind speed maxima inside plant
canopies. J. Appl. Meteorol. 16, 514521.
Shaw, R.H., Pereira, A.R., 1982. Aerodynamic roughness of a plant
canopy: a numerical experiment. Agric. Meteorol. 26, 5165.
Shaw, R.H., Seginer, I., 1987. Calculation of velocity skewness
in real and artificial plant canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol.
39, 315332.
Shaw, R.H., Den Hartog, G., Neumann, H.H., 1988. Influence of
foliar density and thermal stability on profiles of Reynolds stress
and turbulence intensity in a deciduous forest. Boundary-Layer
Meteorol. 45, 391409.
Simpson, I.J., Thurtell, G.W., Neumann, H.H., Den Hartog, G.,
Edwards, G.C., 1998. The validity of similarity theory in the
 P. Zeng, H. Takahashi / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (2000) 301313
roughness sublayer above forests. Boundary-Layer Meteorol.
87, 6999.
Stull, B.S., 1988. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, p. 666.
Takahashi, H., Makita, H., Nakagawa, K., Hayashi, Y., Hao, Y.,
Chin, L., Wang, P., Wei, F., Yao, M., 1986. Micrometeorology
in a rubber plantation during cold wave weather conditions.
In: Yoshino, M. (Ed.), Climate, Geoecology and Agriculture
in South China, Vol. 1. Climatological notes, Institute
of Geoscience, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan,
pp. 3758.
Thom, A.S., 1971. Momentum absorption by vegetation. Quart. J.
R. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 414428.
Van Pul, A., Van Boxel, J.H., 1990. Comment on a first-order
closure scheme to describe counter-gradient momentum
transport in plant canopies by Z.J. Li, D.R. Miller and J.D.
Lin. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 51, 313315.
313
Wang, H., Takle, E.S., 1996. On three-dimensionality of shelterbelt
structure and its influences on shelter effects. Boundary-Layer
Meteorol. 79, 83108.
Watanabe, T., Kondo, J., 1990. The influence of canopy structure
and density upon the mixing length within and above vegetation.
J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 68, 227235.
Wilson, J.D., 1988. A secondary-order closure model for flow
through vegetation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 42, 371392.
Wilson, N.R., Shaw, R.H., 1977. A higher order closure model
for canopy flow. J. Appl. Meteorol. 11971205.
Yoshino, M., Jiang, A., Hao, Y., Takahashi, H., Nakagawa, K.,
Yamakawa, S., Makita, H., Chujo, H., Xie, L., Wang, P., 1988.
System of micrometeorological observation in and out of a
rubber plantation in Hainan Island. In: Yoshino, M. (Ed.),
Climate, Geoecology and Agriculture in South China, Vol. 2.
Climatological notes, Institute of Geoscience, University of
Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 516.