Laserfiche WebLink
Farmer (1981), have concluded that "peatlands tend to reduce the <br />• peak rates of stream flow from heavy rains and snowmelt, and <br />thereby reduce the potential for flooding." <br />Evapotranspiration (ET) losses account for a great deal of <br />the water leaving a peatland. The rate of ET is affected by <br />water table height (or perhaps more appropriately the <br />availability of free water), presence and type of vegetation, and <br />weather conditions. ET approaches its potential, or maximum,rate <br />(PET) when weather is hot and dry, and the peatland water table <br />is high, with water standing throughout the area. Potential <br />evaporation (PE) is the maximum rate of evaporation from open <br />water surfaces (ponds and lakes without surface vegetation). <br />Although Sturges (1969) found, at the Wyoming study site, that ET <br />tocan exceed the rate of evaporation from open water areas, the <br />literature is inconclusive in regard to comparison of the two. <br />Mitsch and Gosselink (1986) have noted this explicitly: <br />it A question about evapotranspiration from wetlands <br />that does not have a uniform answer in the literature <br />is, 'Does the presence of wetland vegetation increase <br />or decrease the loss of water over that which would <br />occur from an open body of water ?' Data from individual <br />studies conflict." <br />To fully answer the question in the specific case of <br />Colorado montane peatlands which, as a result of excavation, are <br />converted to open water ponds would require a dedicated study <br />evaluating both the short and long term conditions at a variety <br />of sites. Answering this question is importanc to water rights <br />• 37 <br />