[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

I am using supertabular, but encounted a problem with the paragraph 
spacing after using generating a supertable. I hope someone can help 

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 

Below an example of the code, which shows the difference between 
paragraph spacing before and after the supertabular. 




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. 

Source                                    & Forest floor 
type                      &Location         &$hoi$ [mm]&$hoi$ [\%]\\ 

\multicolumn{5}{l}{\small\sl continued from previous page}\\ 
Source                                    & Forest floor 
type                      &Location         &$hoi$ [mm]&$hoi$ [\%]\\ 

\multicolumn{5}{r}{\small\sl continued on next page}\\ 


\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 } 

            \citet{Haynes1940}                  &Kentucky bluegrass 
(\textit{Poa pratensis})      & ?            & 
            \citet{Kittredge1948}               &Californian grass 
(\textit{Avena, Stipa, Lolium, Bromus})& USA (CA)   & 
            \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} 
\textit{Quercus floribunda} \& \textit{Quercus leucotrichophora} 
\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&\\ 
(\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      & 
spruce                                 & Scotland      & 
\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 
                                                         &Peble mulch 
(2-6cm)                     & China            &0.526 
\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         &\\ 
(\textit{Pinus})            & Mexico         &   8            &\\ 
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]\\ 


      \footnotetext[1]{percentage of gross precipitation instead of 
net precipitation} 
      \footnotetext[2]{also includes soil moisture storage} 

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.\\ 

-------------- 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