Evapotranspiration in our Pine Barrens

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,319
4,441
Pines; Bamber area
Interesting presentation. Bottom line theory is, when the pines are jam-packed together and so more able to suck water out of the ground (and thereby evaporate more water to the atmosphere), our aquifers are more rapidly depleted. At least that's what I get out of it. I knew about evapotranspiration, but never tied it to our aquifers. I was thinking rain was the only source. Duh.

 

Spung-Man

Explorer
Jan 5, 2009
978
666
64
Richland, NJ
loki.stockton.edu
Bob, many thanks for posting this excellent account of Isaacson's work. There is some irony here. The reason why hydrogeologist Ed Rhodehamel worked with foresters like Little, Little, and Doolittle was not to bolster pine pulpwood production as reported, but to increase water infiltration into the Kirkwood–Cohansey Aquifer system. They encouraged pine growth over oak to acheive greater opportunity for groundwater exploitation. Little did they know then that pines are thirstier than oaks. Instead—apparently—it was the harvesting of the pines that really mattered.

S-M
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,319
4,441
Pines; Bamber area
Bob, many thanks for posting this excellent account of Isaacson's work. There is some irony here. The reason why hydrogeologist Ed Rhodehamel worked with foresters like Little, Little, and Doolittle was not to bolster pine pulpwood production as reported, but to increase water infiltration into the Kirkwood–Cohansey Aquifer system. They encouraged pine growth over oak to acheive greater opportunity for groundwater exploitation. Little did they know then that pines are thirstier than oaks. Instead—apparently—it was the harvesting of the pines that really mattered.

S-M
Very interesting Mark. I would have thought oaks would draw more water. That word "exploitation" of the groundwater -- it sounds like they knew the area would be built up, and so they were trying to help ensure enough water for all?
 
Top