[texhax] Q: paragraph spacing after using supertabular
Miriam Gerrits - CITG
A.M.J.Gerrits at tudelft.nl
Wed Feb 24 09:12:20 CET 2010
Hi,
I am using supertabular, but encounted a problem with the paragraph
spacing after using generating a supertable. I hope someone can help
me.
Before the table there is a white line between the paragraphs in the
final output, forced by \\ and an empty line in the code. After the
table the white line in the output is gone, although I still use \\ +
empty line in the code.
Does anyone know, how I get the white line back also after using the
supertabular??
Below an example of the code, which shows the difference between
paragraph spacing before and after the supertabular.
Thanks!
Miriam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\documentclass{book}
\usepackage[sectionbib]{natbib}
\usepackage{supertabular}
\usepackage{lscape}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
\section{Introduction}
or process due to lack off radiation under the canopy, past research
studies show that it can vary between 10-50\% of throughfall. In Table
\ref{tab:ffi_values} an overview of past results on forest floor
interception are presented.\\
isotope fractionation. Since transpiration does not fractionate water
and interception evaporation does, this could be a way of separating
the two evaporation processes.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{center}
\tablefirsthead{%
\hline
Source & Forest floor
type &Location &$hoi$ [mm]&$hoi$ [\%]\\
[2.5ex]
\hline}
\tablehead{%
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\small\sl continued from previous page}\\
\hline
Source & Forest floor
type &Location &$hoi$ [mm]&$hoi$ [\%]\\
[2.5ex]
\hline}
\tabletail{%
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{r}{\small\sl continued on next page}\\
}
\tablelasttail{\hline}
\bottomcaption{Forest floor interception values in literature, with
the water storage capacity $hoi$ and the interception evaporation $hoi
$ as percentage of net precipitation (i.e., throughfall).}
\begin{supertabular}{p{5cm} p{7cm} p{2.5cm} l c }
\hline
\hline
\citet{Haynes1940} &Kentucky bluegrass
(\textit{Poa pratensis}) & ? &
&56\footnotemark[1]\\
\citet{Kittredge1948} &Californian grass
(\textit{Avena, Stipa, Lolium, Bromus})& USA (CA) &
&26\footnotemark[1]\\
\citet{Beard1956} &\textit{Themeda} \&
\textit{Cymbopogon} & South Africa& &13\footnotemark[1]\\
\citet{Helvey1964} &
Poplar & USA (NC)
& &34\\
\citet{Brechtel1969} & Scot's
pine & USA (NY) & & 21\\
& Norway
spruce & USA (NY) & & 16\\
&
Beech & USA (NY)
& & 16\\
&
Oak & USA (NY)
& & 11\\
\citet{Pathak1985} &\textit{Shorea
robusta} \& \textit{Mallotus philippensis} &
India & &11.8\\
&
\textit{Pinus roxburghii} \& \textit{Quercus glauca} &India&&7.8\\
&
\textit{Pinus roxburghii}&India&&9.6\\
&
\textit{Quercus leucotrichophora} \& \textit{Pinus roxburghii}
&India&&10.6\\
&
\textit{Quercus floribunda} \& \textit{Quercus leucotrichophora}
&India&&11.0\\
&
\textit{Quercus lanuginosa} \& \textit{Quercus floribunda}&India&&11.3\
\
\citet{Clark1940} in \citet{Thurow1987} & Blue stem
\textit{Andropogon gerardi Vitman}&USA (TX) & &57-84\
\
\citet{Walsh1977} &Pine (\textit{Pinus
sylvestris}) &United Kingdom&0.6-1.7&\\
&Beech
(\textit{Fagus sylvaticus})&United Kingdom&0.9-2.8&\\
\citet{Pitman1989} &Bracken litter
(\textit{Pteridium aquiliunum})&United Kingdom&1.67&\\
\citet{Miller1990} &Norway
spruce & Scotland &
&18\footnotemark[1]\\
&Sitka
spruce & Scotland &
&16\footnotemark[1]\\
\citet{Thamm1995} &Beech (\textit{Asperulo-
Fagetum})& Germany &2.5-3.0 &12-28\\
\citet{Putuhena1996} &\textit{Pinus
radiata} & Australia & 2.78 &\\
&Eucalyptus & Australia &
1.70 &\\
\citet{Schaap1997} &Douglas
fir & Netherlands &
&0.23 mm d$^{-1}$\\
\citet{Li2000} &Peble mulch
(5-9cm) & China &0.281
&11.5\footnotemark[1]\\
&Peble mulch
(2-6cm) & China &0.526
&17.4\footnotemark[1]\\
\citet{Sato2004} & \textit{Cryptomeria
japonica} & Japan & 0.27-1.72&\\
&
\textit{Lithocarpus edulis} & Japan & 0.67-3.05&\
\ \citet{Guevara-
Escobar2007} &Grass (\textit{Aristida divaricata})&
Mexico & 2.5 &\\
&Woodchips
(\textit{Pinus}) & Mexico & 8 &\\
&Poplar
leaves (\textit{Populus nigra})& Mexico & 2.3 &\\
\citet{Gerrits2007b} &Mosses \&
grasses & Netherlands
&3-15\footnotemark[2] &52\footnotemark[1]\\
\citet{Gerrits2009d} &Beech (\textit{Fagus
sylvatica})& Luxembourg & 1.0-2.8 &10-35\footnotemark[1]\\
\hline
\end{supertabular}
\footnotetext[1]{percentage of gross precipitation instead of
net precipitation}
\footnotetext[2]{also includes soil moisture storage}
\label{tab:ffi_values}
\end{center}
\end{landscape}
A remarkable difference between canopy and forest floor interception
is the relatively small interception storage capacity
he forest floor. On the other hand, the canopy has a larger
evaporative potential compared to forest floor \citep{Baird1999}. The
higher evaporative potential is caused by more turbulent wind fluxes
at the canopy level and more available radiation.\\
Another important difference is the large seasonal influence on canopy
interception and the rather constant considered.\\
\end{document}
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20100224/8b853355/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the texhax
mailing list