• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Estimation of drag forces caused by natural woody vegetation of different scales*

    2014-04-05 21:44:04JALONENJohannaRVELJuha

    JALONEN Johanna, J?RVEL? Juha

    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, E-mail: johanna.jalonen@aalto.fi

    Estimation of drag forces caused by natural woody vegetation of different scales*

    JALONEN Johanna, J?RVEL? Juha

    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, E-mail: johanna.jalonen@aalto.fi

    (Received March 5, 2014, Revised April 30, 2014)

    To reliably estimate water levels and velocities in vegetated rivers and floodplains, flow resistance models based on physical plant properties are advantageous. The purpose of this study is (1) to assess the suitable parameterization of woody riparian vegetation in estimating the drag forces, (2) to address the effect of plant scale on the drag estimates and reconfiguration, and (3) to evaluate the applicability of three recently developed flow resistance models. Experiments on four tree species in a towing tank together with detailed characterization of tree properties were carried out to establish a novel dataset. Despite the variability in the tree height (0.9 m-3.4 m), the stem, leaf and total areas proved to be suitable characteristic dimensions for estimating the flow resistance at different scales. Evaluations with independent data revealed that the tested models produced reasonable results. The performance of the models was controlled by the parameter values used rather than the model structure or the plant scale.

    drag force, flow resistance, woody vegetation, modelling

    Introduction

    Woody riparian vegetation is an important feature in river and wetland environments and it is used for river bank stabilization and in floodplains and channels to create shade and to increase biodiversity. Even though vegetation is essential for ecological functions, it significantly influences the hydraulics and may raise the water levels during a flood event. A reliable estimation of the flow resistance of trees is vital in flood protection, river restoration and modelling sediment processes. To improve the resistance estimation of complex vegetation, physically-based methods based on objective and measurable vegetation properties are desirable[1]. Therefore, the hydraulic resistance of vegetation has been investigated in flumes with living and artificial plants, both in arrays and as isolated plants[2-7]. The experiments on the resistance of woody vegetation are often restricted by the flume size, and thus conducted with parts of trees, twigs, or small trees. The flow resistance, the reconfiguration and the structural properties of trees of larger size are less explored. Only few studies for trees have been conducted in water[8,9], though useful knowledge is available for air flows from wind tunnel experiments[10].

    Estimating the flow resistance of trees is complex due to the variability in tree morphology[1]. In addition, the flow characteristics and the vegetative resistance vary with the scales of leaf, plant or plant-stand[11]and for small patches which are affected by the momentum exchange at the patch boundaries[12]. The leaf drag depends on the leaf characteristics, such as the surface type, the roughness and the shape, and the flexural rigidity[13]. Leaves attached to the plants exert less drag than that measured for individual leaves due to shading and more efficient reconfiguration[13,14]. The force exerted by vegetation is usually expressed in the form of the classical drag force approach

    where CDis the drag coefficient,ACis the reference area (commonly the frontal projected area,AP), and uCis the characteristic approach velocity (typically the mean velocity,um).

    The methods for quantifying the resistance vary from one-dimensional approaches, such as Manning’s n or Darcy-Weisbach friction factorf, to three-dimensional approaches based on the drag force equation (Eq.(1)). The resistance is often expressed through a resistance coefficient, which combines all the factors related to the resistance, and is estimated from reference values in similar channels or calibrated as site-specific values. A simple way to estimate the vegetative resistance is to decompose the friction factor into the bed friction(f′)and the form resistance (f′′)through a linear relation of f=f′+f′′. The vegetative friction factor can be derived from the spatially averaged drag force per unit ground areaAB[1]by

    J?rvel?[18]quantified the resistance from the one-sided leaf area per ground area AL/ABexpressed as leaf area index, LAI, the species-specificCDχ, and the reconfiguration parameterχ

    To take into account the different properties and reconfiguration of the stem and leaves V?stil? and J?rvel?[7]reformulated the J?rvel?[18]model (Eq.(4)) by separating the foliage and stem friction factors by linear superposition as f=fF+fS, leading to

    1. Methods

    1.1 Modelling of drag force

    In the present study, Eqs.(4) and (5) for the friction factors are reformulated in the form of a drag force. Similar to Eq.(5), the drag force (Eq.(1)) maybe divided in to foliage and stem drag

    Cis equal to C/uand has a unit ofm-χ.D,bulkDχχ Fbulkis used here to distinguish the foliated bulk drag from Ftotaccording to the model presented in Eq.(8).

    The performance of Eqs.(6), (8) and (9) is evaluated in Section 2.3. The models are evaluated by comparing with the direct drag force measurements of the present study (Section 1.2) and applying the species-specific drag and reconfiguration parameters of J?rvel?[18](Eq.(4) reformulated as Eq.(9)), V?stil? and J?rvel?[7](Eq.(5) reformulated as Eq.(8)) and Whittaker et al.[16](Eq.(6)). The extraction of the tree characteristics required for the models is described in Section 1.3.

    1.2 Towing tank experiments

    The measurement system attached to the carriage was towed empty to ensure that there was no disturbance to the force measurement at any point at the length of the towing tank.

    The trees were mounted upside-down on the measurement system with an aluminum cylinder of 0.035 m in diameter. To adjust the trees of different diameters to the cylinder, polyurethane was used to fill the extra space in the cylinder. Before fixing the cylinder on the drag measurement system, the trees were rotated so that the natural curvature of the main stem was directed downstream, i.e., opposite to the towing direction. Two camera positions were used to collect underwater video recordings. The submerged side and rear view cameras were attached at a distance of 3 m and 5.5 m, respectively, from the plant.

    The drag forces were directly measured both under foliated and defoliated conditions in the velocity range of 0.1 m/s-1.5 m/s and 0.1 m/s-2.5 m/s, respectively. Velocities higher than 1.5 m/s were not measured under foliated conditions for most specime- ns, as the forces were higher than those under defo- liated conditions, and it could be observed from the side view cameras that the specimens were already streamlined close to a maximum. The measurements were carried out by towing the specimens in one direction, and after each run the carriage was brought back to the starting position. The next experiment was started after there was no disturbance in the water from the previous run. Velocities of 0.1 m/s, 0.2 m/s, 0.3 m/s, 0.4 m/s and 0.5 m/s were measured in one run as also the velocities of 0.6 m/s and 0.8 m/s. Due to the length limitation of the tank, the velocities of 1.0 m/s, 1.25 m/s, 1.5 m/s, 1.75 m/s, 2 m/s, 2.25 m/s and 2.5 m/s were measured individually.

    Only the values of the measured forces ten se-conds after reaching the measurement velocity were selected for the analyses, as with the acceleration there was a peak in the forces especially for velocities higher than 0.6 m/s. It took 1 s-10 s depending on the change of velocity for the specimens to reach a condition where the reconfiguration did not considerably change. This resulted in an effective measurement period of 35 s for velocities below 1.5 m/s. For the highest velocity of 2.5 m/s the effective measurement period was 10 s due to the tank length limitation. The force data for the effective measurement period were selected and the averages and coefficients of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) were computed. The forces under the defoliated condition at the lowest velocity 0.1 m/s could not be measured for two specimens (AG6 and SC9, Table 1). These specimens were small, and the corresponding forces subjected to the individual load cells were below the measurement range. Subsequent statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS Statistics 21.

    1.3 Experimented trees

    The investigated species were the Common Alder (Alnus glutinosa), the Goat Willow (Salix caprea), the Silver Birch (Betula pendula) and the White Birch (Betula pubescens). The measurement period was scheduled in the beginning of June 2012 when the trees had reached full foliage. These trees were picked from a nearby wetland area in the mor- ning before the measurements.

    For all specimens, the length, the height, the wet and dry biomasses, the projected area in still air under defoliated and foliated conditions, and the one-sided leaf area were determined (Table 1). The trees were photographed against white background from four directions in still air. A 3-D tree structure model of the leafless trees was established by digitizing the tree elements with a device based on the electromagnetic field (EMF, see detailed description in Ref.[20]). The one-sided stem area,AS, and the stem volume,VS, were obtained from the 3-D tree structure model. The method takes into account the whole main stem and branch area in contrast to the photographic analysis where parts of the branches are shaded. The stem area used is defined as the projected one-sided area of the main stem and the branches obtained from the 3-D model. The stem frontal projected area in still air was measured for ten specimens from photographs, and the difference between the photographs and the stem area from the 3-D tree structure model varied between -13%and+24%, and was on average 4% smaller for the photographs (3 alders, 4 birches and 3 willows). A leaf thickness of 0.00035 m was used to obtain the leaf volumes, and the total volume was obtained as the sum of the leaf volume and the stem volume. The underwater frontal projected area was obtained from the images of the video footage in Matlab by selecting the tree pixels.

    After the towing tank measurements in foliated conditions, the specimens were left to dry so that the leaves could be plugged for determining the leaf wet (fresh) and dry masses. The lengths of the trees were then measured and the trees were divided into four length sections. The biomass was analyzed for the four length sections, separately. Due to the large size of the trees, the leaf area was measured only for the second section from the top. For this section, three samples were taken and for each of them, both the leaf areaALand the wet and dry masses were determined. The leaves were scanned with an office scanner to obtain the leaf area, andALwas obtained from the scan with the pixel counting in Matlab. The ratio of the leaf areaALto the dry mass was determined as LAR=AL/mL,d. Hence, the total leaf area was obtained by multiplying LAR with the total dry mass. The total area of the plants was defined as the sum of the leaf and stem areas,Atot=AL+AS. After taking the leaf samples the specimen was towed again under the leafless condition. Subsequently, the stem wet mass and dry mass of the defoliated specimens were measured for the four length sections.

    The flexural rigidity in Eq.(6) was determined by placing a loadPto the mid-stem at a distance L50(half the tree height) from the base. EI50was derived from the measured displacementδas

    2. Results

    2.1 Relationship between drag force and physical tree properties

    The towing tank experiments resulted in a large range of measured forces due to the differences in the tree size (Fig.2). For instance, at a velocity of 1.5 m/s the measured range of bulk drag forces was from 10 N to 110 N, and the range of the stem drag was from 5 N to 70 N.

    The normalizations of the bulk drag, the foliage drag and the stem drag with the total area, the leaf area and the stem area, respectively, are shown in Fig.3. The species-averaged parameters required for the use of Eqs.(8) and (9) were obtained from the power law fitting in Fig.3 (see Table 2). The foliage drag forces showed an almost linear relationship with u, as χFwas on average -1.03 whereas the bulk drag showed a less efficient reconfiguration of the stem and leaves withχ≈-0.81.

    The stem drag appeared to have a piece-wise relationship withu (Fig.3(c)). Thus, the three different CDandχparameters for FS/ASin Table 2 were derived from a power-law regression in the whole velocity range, for the velocities between 0.1 m/s-0.6 m/s (subscript “l(fā)ow” in Table 2) and for the velocities above 0.6 m/s (subscript “high”). By neglecting the velocities below 0.6 m/s, the fitting was close to a linear relationχ≈-1(Table 2,χS,high). The power law fitting for all velocities implied a non-linear relationship between the stem force and the velocity with an average χSof –0.64. For the velo- cities below 0.6 m/s the FS-urelationship was close to a squared relation with species-averagedχS,lowbetween -0.19 and -0.36.

    The interspecies variation of the normalized drag forces was smaller forFbulk/Atotthan for FF/ALand FS/AS(Fig.4). The intraspecific variation for Fbulk/Atotwas 24% and 16% smaller than FS/ASand FF/AL, respectively. For Fbulk/Atotthe variation was the smallest for A. glutinosa and S. caprea. TheFbulk/Atotdataset consisted of six specimens of A. glutinosa and eight of S. caprea, but Fbulk/Atotwas available only for three specimens of B. pendula and B. pubescens. When Fbulkwas normalized with ALthe normalization was similar to Fbulk/Atotdue to the high share of foliage to the total area, and Fbulk/ Atotwas only 4%-9% smaller than Fbulk/AL(Fig.4(a)). The interspecies variability was similar for Fbulk/Atotand Fbulk/AL, but the intraspecific variation was on average 12% higher for Fbulk/AL.

    The normalization of FFand Fbulkwith the wet mass showed a smaller overall intraspecific variationthan the normalization with the dry mass. The wet and dry masses showed a similar variation for FS(Fig.4(b)). The interspecies variations of FFand Fbulkwere on average 14% and 24% higher against the dry mass than against the wet mass, respectively.

    When the stem drag was normalized with the volume, the smallest variation with the coefficient of variation cv=0.10 was observed for S. caprea (Fig.4(a)). The other species showed larger variations and the value ofcvwas on average 0.23. The interspecies variation of FS/ASwas 17% lower than that ofFS/mS,W, and 7% higher than that of FS/mS,D. The normalization with the stem and total volumes had the smallest variation for S. caprea and A. glutinosa.Ftot/Atothad a higher overall intraspecific variation (cv=0.32)than FS/VS.

    2.2 Drag force and reconfiguration of trees under flow

    The share of the foliage drag to the total drag as an average for all the species is shown in Fig.6(a). At a velocity of 0.1 m/s the foliage contributed 70%-80 % of the total drag. This share decreased to 40%-50% at u =0.6 m/s and higher. The FF/Fbulkshare of A. glutinosa was on average 15% higher than that of S. caprea. The change in the FF/Fbulkpattern (Fig.5(a)) at u=1.75 m/s for B. pubescens was due to the smaller sampling size, as only a few foliated specimens were towed with velocities higher than 1.5 m/s.

    The frontal projected area in relation to the frontal area at zero velocity was around 70%-90% of that at 0.1 m/s (Fig.5(b)). Similar to the share of the leaf drag, the frontal projected area under water(APW) decreased rapidly to about 35% at 0.6 m/s (Fig.5(b)). At velocities above 0.6 m/s the frontal projected area continued to decrease at a lower rate of change.

    The deflected height,Hd, of the leafy trees decreased almost linearly up to a velocity of 1.0 m/s, after which this decrease was slightly slower (Fig.6(a)). On the other hand, for the defoliated trees, the decrease in the deflected heights was more pronounced at 0.5 m/s-1.5 m/s than at lower velocities of 0.1 m/s-0.4 m/s (Fig.6(b)). In Fig.6(b) there was a rise in the average of the ratio of the deflected height to the height in still water,Hd,S/Hd,S,0, for S. caprea at 2 m/s due to the smaller sampling size for velocities higher than 1.75 m/s.

    The differences in the leaf and stem areas for plants of different scales are shown in Fig.7(a). The AL/ASvalues fell close to each other for all specimens, but the smaller trees(<1.5m)were characterized by a larger share of leaves compared to the stem. AL/ASshares of S. caprea were generally slightly lower compared to the other species.

    The flexural rigidity of the main stem,EI50, increased with the increase of the tree length (Fig.7(b)). This increase in the rigidity was not linear, as the increase was more pronounced for tall treesH=2m-3m , than for short trees of H =1m-2m.

    Theχvalues for the bulk, the foliage, and the stem drag were not dependent on the tree length (Fig.8). Hence, theχvalues for trees with AL/ASin the range between 9.6 and 27 did not deviate notably. Similarly, the dependency betweenχand EI50was not evident.

    The values predicted by Eq.(6) were lower than the measured ones (Fig.9(c)). Eq.(6) requires theK parameter values, which correspond to some initial CDAPvalues.K refers to K50whenEIis measured at the half tree height. These values are derived from a linear relationship betweenK50and Vprovided in Ref.[16] for Salix alba. The F values could be estimated for three foliated specimens (SC1,SC2 and SC5), as the K50vs.Vtotrelationship is valid forVtot>5×10-4m3. Under defoliated conditions, theKvs.Vrelation is valid for V>0m3,

    50SS and thus we could analyse six specimens. For defoliated specimens, the predicted values were on average 49 % smaller than the measuredFS. For foliated specimens, the predicted values were 18% lower than the measuredFbulk. The applicability of the three models at different flow velocities and tree scales is evaluated in detail in the discussion section below.

    3. Discussions

    3.1 Tree parameterization for resistance estimations with a view on scale

    The normalized bulk and stem drag forces Fbulk/ Atotand FS/AShad both the smallest interspecies and intraspecific variations as compared to the normalizations with biomass and volume. The normalization of the bulk drag with the leaf area,Fbulk/AL, had a similar interspecies variation as Fbulk/Atot(Fig.4(a)), but was characterized by a larger intraspecific variation, which was most likely attributed to the different leaf to stem area ratio of the specimens. The foliage drag,FF, normalized with the dry and wet masses as well as the leaf area showed a greater variation than the corresponding normalizations forFbulkand FS. The intraspecific variation of FF/ALwas similar to FF/mL,W, but the interspecies varia- tion was lower forFF/AL.

    3.2 Drag force models

    The reconfiguration of the stem was more effective for the trees in our study than twigs in Ref.[7], as theχSvalues were two times larger in absolute value than those of the twigs[7]. The χSin an average for all the specimens, with velocity ranges of 0.1 m/s-0.6 m/s and 0.1 m/s-0.8 m/s, was -0.24 and -0.32, respectively, and thus very close to theχSof the twigs[7]with low velocities (u =0.2m/s-0.8m/s). For the case ofA . glutinosa χSwas similar to that of A. glutinosa in Ref.[16]. (χS=-0.57), but forS. caprea the stem reconfiguration was less efficient than those of S. alba (χS=-0.84)in Ref.[16]. However, the specimens in Ref.[16] were experimented at higher velocities of up to 3.5 m/s, which reduced the impact of the low velocities on the power-law fit. Although significant differences in the flexural rigidity of the specimens of the present study in comparison to other studies were shown (Fig.10(b)), the reconfiguration parametersχ and χSappeared to be more similar than EI50for trees of different sizes and habitats.

    Similar to the studies of Whittaker et al.[16], a linear regression was found for K-V(R2=0.875)

    50tot and K-V(R2=0.798), but with an error of 49%

    50S for the measured FSvalues in this paper as compared with FSestimated by Eq.(6), most probably due to the difference in both K50and χS(23% difference for χS). The K50for the defoliated trees were three times larger for our data than derived from the linear fit in Ref.[16]. For the foliated trees theχwas similar to that in Ref.[16], but the K50was 36% higher from our data and the error in the predicted Fbulkwas 18% (Fig.9(c)). The K50values for the stem varied more than those for the foliated tree and they differed between low and high velocities due to the piece-wise form ofFS-u relationship. The K50vs.V relation was affected by EI50andH, which deviated for the specimens of Ref.[16] as compared to the present study (Fig.10(b)).K50appeared to correlate with the stem and total areas (Fig.12), which implied that K50could be replaced with a characteristic area multiplied with a constant, e.g. CDAC. This is in line with the definition of Ref.[16] that the K50corresponds to some initial value of CDAP. Eq.(6) is based on a modified Cauchy number CY=ρU2VH/EI. In comparison, Luhar and Nepf[12]usedbl3(whereb is the blade width andlis the blade length) for the flexible aquatic vegetation in predicting the drag based on the vegetation Cauchy number and buoyance. As in the present study, the total and stem areas were found to be better resistance predictors than the volume, the use ofACinstead of Vcould be investigated in further studies. For such investigations we propose formulating Eq.(6) to includeAH2as

    C

    4. Conclusions

    Our experimental investigations with several alternative parameterizations of tree properties together with direct drag force measurements at different scales (0.9 m-3.4 m) provided a new dataset more extensive than those in the existing literature. The comprehensive tree property and force data allowed us to compare the suitability and the reliability of different plant parameterizations for physically-based modeling applications. Subsequently, three flow resistance or drag force models were evaluated with the new data. The main findings of this study are as follows:

    The stem, leaf and total areas of the trees confirmed to be suitable characteristic dimensions for estimating flow resistance, as the variation in the corresponding normalized drag forces was smaller than that for the dry and wet masses as well as the volume. The interspecies variation of the parametersχand CDwas small. It remains to be investigated to what extent the parameter values are species-specific and how they depend on growing conditions. The results showed that at low velocities the stem drag of foliated trees reduced in comparison to that under the defoliated condition due to a more efficient reconfiguration of the stem caused by the leaf mass. This implied that the actual foliage drag at low velocities can be somewhat larger than that estimated by FF=Ftot-FS. Variation in the ratio of the leaf area to the stem area was found for trees of different sizes, and the share of the leaf area appeared to increase for the smallest specimens. The largest scale-dependent variation in the investigated parameters was found for the total drag per dry mass and the stem drag per stem volume.

    Acknowledgements

    Visiting researchers Johann Peter Rauch and Clemens Weissteiner from the University of NaturalResources and Life Sciences, Vienna, collected and provided the 3-D EMF data on the plant structure for our use. We would like to thank Peggy Zinke who kindly provided additional flexural rigidity data, and Catherine Wilson and Jochen Aberle for providing the original Alnus leaf and stem area data of Xavier[9]. The authors also thank the trainees Anja Zogan and Ferran Garcia for helping with the experiments. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland and Maa- ja vesitekniikan tuki ry.

    [1] ABERLE J., J?RVEL? J. Flow resistance of emergent rigid and flexible floodplain vegetation[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2013, 51(1): 33-45.

    [2] J?RVEL? J. Determination of flow resistance of vegetated channel banks and floodplains[C]. Proceedings of the International Conference River Flow. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 2002.

    [3] ARMANINI A., RIGHETTI M. and GRISENTI P. Direct measurement of vegetation resistance in prototype scale[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2005, 43(5): 481-487.

    [4] WILSON C. A. M. E., HOYT J. and SCHNAUDER I. Impact of foliage on the drag force of vegetation in aquatic flows[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 2008, 134(7): 885-891.

    [5] RODI W., UHLMANN M. Environmental fluid mechanics: Memorial colloquim on environmental fluid mechanics in honour of Proferssor Gerhard H. Jirka[M]. London, UK: CRC Press, 2012, 195-215.

    [6] JALONEN J., J?RVEL? J. and ABERLE J. Leaf area index as vegetation density measure for hydraulic analyses[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 2013, 139(5): 461-469.

    [7] V?STIL? K., J?RVEL? J. Modeling the flow resistance of woody vegetation using physically based properties of the foliage and stem[J]. Water Resources Research, 2014, 50(1): 229-245.

    [8] OPLATKA M. Stabilit?t von Weidenverbauungen an Flussufern[D]. Doctoral Thesis, Zürich, Switzerland: Eidgen?ssische Technische Hochschule, 1998.

    [9] XAVIER P. Floodplain woodland hydrodynamics[D]. Doctoral Thesis, Cardiff, UK: Cardiff University, 2009.

    [10] VOLLSINGER S., MITCHELL S. J., BYRNE K.E., et al. Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for three conifer species[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2004, 35(5): 1238-1249.

    [11] NIKORA V. Hydrodynamics of aquatic ecosystems: An interface between ecology, biomechanics and environmental fluid mechanics[J]. River Research and Applications, 2010, 26(4): 367-384.

    [12] LUHAR M., NEPF H. M. From the blade scale to the reach scale: A characterization of aquatic vegetative drag[J]. Advances in Water Resources, 2013, 51: 305-316.

    [13] ALBAYRAK I., NIKORA V. and MILER O. et al. Flow-plant interactions at a leaf scale: effects of leaf shape, serration, roughness and flexural rigidity[J]. Aquatic Sciences, 2012, 74(2): 267-286.

    [14] ALBAYRAK I., NIKORA V. and MILER O. et al. Flow–plant interactions at leaf, stem and shoot scales: Drag, turbulence, and biomechanics[J]. Aquatic Sciences, 2014, 76(2): 269-294.

    [15] De LANGRE E., Effects of wind on plants[J]. Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, 2008, 40: 141-168.

    [16] WHITTAKER P., WILSON C. and ABERLE J. et al. A drag force model to incorporate the reconfiguration of full-scale riparian trees under hydrodynamic loading[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2013, 51(5): 569-580.

    [17] STATZNER B., LAMOUROUX N. and NIKORA V. et al. The debate about drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes: Comparing results obtained by three recently discussed approaches[J]. Freshwater Biology, 2006, 51(11): 2173-2183.

    [18] J?RVEL? J. Determination of flow resistance caused by non-submerged woody vegetation[J]. International Journal of River Basin Management, 2004, 2(1): 61-70.

    [19] HARDER D., SPECK O. and HURD C. et al. Reconfiguration as a prerequisite for survival in highly unstable flow-dominated habitats[J]. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 2004, 23(2): 98-107.

    [20] WEISSTEINER C., RAUCH J. P. and JALONEN J. et al. Spatial-structural analysis of woody riparian vegetation for hydraulic considerations[C]. Proceedings of the 35th IAHR World Congress. Chengdu, China, 2013.

    [21] V?STIL? K., J?RVEL? J. and ABERLE J. Characteristic reference areas for estimating flow resistance of natural foliated vegetation[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2013, 492: 49-60.

    [22] ZINKE P. Elasticity measurements for selected north european floodplain species[C]. Proceedings of the 35th IAHR World Congress. Chengdu, China, 2013.

    [23] STONE M. C., CHEN L. and KYLE MCKAY S. et al. Bending of submerged woody riparian vegetation as a function of hydraulic flow conditions[J]. River Research and Applications, 2013, 29(2): 195-205.

    [24] VOGEL S. Drag and reconfiguration of broad leaves in high winds[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1989, 40(8): 941-948.

    [25] JALONEN J., J?RVEL? J. and ABERLE J. Vegetated flows: Drag force and velocity profiles for foliated plant stands[C]. Proceedings of the River Flow, 2012, International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics. San Jose, Costa Rica, 2012.

    [26] JALONEN J., J?RVEL? J. and VIRTANEN J. P. et al. Drag and reconfiguration of trees: Towing tank experiments with TLS based plant characterization[J]. Proceedings of the 3rd IAHR Europe Congress. Porto, Portugal, 2014.

    Notations

    10.1016/S1001-6058(14)60068-8

    * Biography: JALONEN Johanna (1984-), Female, Ph. D. Candidate

    18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 亚洲 国产 在线| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| www.自偷自拍.com| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 天堂动漫精品| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 欧美色视频一区免费| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 精品国产国语对白av| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 色在线成人网| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 久久这里只有精品19| 成人三级做爰电影| 一级毛片精品| 亚洲最大成人中文| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 乱人伦中国视频| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 超碰成人久久| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 嫩草影视91久久| av免费在线观看网站| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 精品人妻1区二区| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 久9热在线精品视频| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| www.精华液| 中文字幕久久专区| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 无限看片的www在线观看| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 黄片小视频在线播放| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| www.www免费av| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 曰老女人黄片| av视频免费观看在线观看| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产色视频综合| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 两个人看的免费小视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 亚洲第一青青草原| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 日本 欧美在线| 99久久国产精品久久久| 色av中文字幕| 免费观看精品视频网站| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 欧美在线黄色| 日韩高清综合在线| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产野战对白在线观看| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 男人操女人黄网站| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 日本欧美视频一区| 色播亚洲综合网| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 亚洲成人久久性| videosex国产| 成人三级做爰电影| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 天堂动漫精品| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 色播在线永久视频| 欧美日韩黄片免| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 超碰成人久久| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| www.999成人在线观看| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 宅男免费午夜| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 成人国语在线视频| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 麻豆av在线久日| 精品日产1卡2卡| 国产1区2区3区精品| av免费在线观看网站| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| av网站免费在线观看视频| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 久久这里只有精品19| 九色国产91popny在线| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 波多野结衣高清无吗| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看 | 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 免费不卡黄色视频| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 精品高清国产在线一区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆 | 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 久99久视频精品免费| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 大码成人一级视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 亚洲九九香蕉| 两个人看的免费小视频| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国产精华一区二区三区| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| netflix在线观看网站| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱 | 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区 | 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 欧美在线黄色| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 91国产中文字幕| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 自线自在国产av| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 免费不卡黄色视频| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 国产精品二区激情视频| a在线观看视频网站| 国产1区2区3区精品| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲伊人色综图| 成人免费观看视频高清| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 免费少妇av软件| www日本在线高清视频| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲九九香蕉| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 午夜久久久久精精品| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| bbb黄色大片| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| tocl精华| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 久久久国产成人免费| 热re99久久国产66热| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 色播在线永久视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 久久草成人影院| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| av有码第一页| 国产激情久久老熟女| 欧美日韩黄片免| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 两个人看的免费小视频| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 天天添夜夜摸| 国产亚洲欧美98| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| tocl精华| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 91精品三级在线观看| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 免费高清视频大片| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| www日本在线高清视频| 88av欧美| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 在线永久观看黄色视频| www.www免费av| av电影中文网址| 日韩欧美三级三区| www国产在线视频色| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 露出奶头的视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 天天添夜夜摸| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 成人三级黄色视频| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产免费男女视频| 国产精品,欧美在线| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 成人国语在线视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 一a级毛片在线观看| 国产色视频综合| 无限看片的www在线观看| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av | 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 此物有八面人人有两片| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 国产片内射在线| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 十八禁网站免费在线| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久热这里只有精品99| 久久九九热精品免费| 久久 成人 亚洲| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 一夜夜www| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 9色porny在线观看| 不卡一级毛片| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产野战对白在线观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 国产野战对白在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 精品久久久久久,| aaaaa片日本免费| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 日韩有码中文字幕| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 国产成人影院久久av| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 精品电影一区二区在线| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱 | 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 国产av在哪里看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 在线国产一区二区在线| 在线免费观看的www视频| av视频在线观看入口| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 国产av在哪里看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 精品人妻1区二区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 我的亚洲天堂| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 大型av网站在线播放| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 国产又爽黄色视频| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 一区二区三区激情视频| 久久中文字幕一级| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 久9热在线精品视频| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区 | 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清 | 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 国产单亲对白刺激| 欧美午夜高清在线| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 岛国在线观看网站| 午夜免费激情av| 国产成人影院久久av| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 一区在线观看完整版| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | av视频免费观看在线观看| 九色国产91popny在线| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 在线国产一区二区在线| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 久久香蕉精品热| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产野战对白在线观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 日本a在线网址| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 97碰自拍视频| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 在线观看一区二区三区| 久久热在线av| 久久久久久大精品| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 男人舔女人的私密视频| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 精品第一国产精品| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 亚洲av熟女| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 高清在线国产一区| 变态另类丝袜制服| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 日本 欧美在线| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 日本三级黄在线观看| 88av欧美| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 午夜影院日韩av| 很黄的视频免费| 此物有八面人人有两片| 香蕉国产在线看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 午夜两性在线视频| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 日本在线视频免费播放| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 久久青草综合色| 香蕉丝袜av| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 精品高清国产在线一区| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| av免费在线观看网站| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 久久久久九九精品影院| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 好男人电影高清在线观看| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 美女午夜性视频免费| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| svipshipincom国产片| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 乱人伦中国视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 欧美日韩黄片免| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 精品福利观看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 在线免费观看的www视频| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 男人操女人黄网站| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 丁香六月欧美| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 999久久久国产精品视频| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 91麻豆av在线| 色综合站精品国产| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 少妇 在线观看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 操美女的视频在线观看| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 久久热在线av| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 中国美女看黄片| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| av天堂在线播放| 欧美色视频一区免费| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 极品教师在线免费播放| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 99久久国产精品久久久| 丁香欧美五月| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 午夜老司机福利片| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区 | av有码第一页| 久久青草综合色| 亚洲无线在线观看| 91在线观看av| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人|