When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration?
Increasing vapor pressure deficit (VPD) increases atmospheric demand for water. While increased evapotranspiration (ET) in response to increased atmospheric demand seems intuitive, plants are capable of reducing ET in response to increased VPD by closing their stomata. We examine which effect domina...
Published in: | Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Text |
Language: | unknown |
Published: |
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001790 |
id |
ftarxivpreprints:oai:arXiv.org:1805.05444 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftarxivpreprints:oai:arXiv.org:1805.05444 2023-09-05T13:17:34+02:00 When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? Massmann, Adam Gentine, Pierre Lin, Changjie 2018-05-14 http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001790 unknown http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444 Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11. (2019) doi:10.1029/2019MS001790 Physics - Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics text 2018 ftarxivpreprints https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001790 2023-08-16T14:50:47Z Increasing vapor pressure deficit (VPD) increases atmospheric demand for water. While increased evapotranspiration (ET) in response to increased atmospheric demand seems intuitive, plants are capable of reducing ET in response to increased VPD by closing their stomata. We examine which effect dominates the response to increasing VPD: atmospheric demand and increases in ET, or plant response (stomata closure) and decreases in ET. We use Penman-Monteith, combined with semi-empirical optimal stomatal regulation theory and underlying water use efficiency, to develop a theoretical framework for assessing ET response to VPD. The theory suggests that depending on the environment and plant characteristics, ET response to increasing VPD can vary from strongly decreasing to increasing, highlighting the diversity of plant water regulation strategies. The ET response varies due to: 1) climate, with tropical and temperate climates more likely to exhibit a positive ET response to increasing VPD than boreal and arctic climates; 2) photosynthesis strategy, with C3 plants more likely to exhibit a positive ET response than C4 plants; and 3) plant type, with crops more likely to exhibit a positive ET response, and shrubs and gymniosperm trees more likely to exhibit a negative ET response. These results, derived from previous literature connecting plant parameters to plant and climate characteristics, highlight the utility of our simplified framework for understanding complex land atmosphere systems in terms of idealized scenarios in which ET responds to VPD only. This response is otherwise challenging to assess in an environment where many processes co-evolve together. Text Arctic ArXiv.org (Cornell University Library) Arctic Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 11 10 3305 3320 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
ArXiv.org (Cornell University Library) |
op_collection_id |
ftarxivpreprints |
language |
unknown |
topic |
Physics - Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics |
spellingShingle |
Physics - Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics Massmann, Adam Gentine, Pierre Lin, Changjie When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
topic_facet |
Physics - Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics |
description |
Increasing vapor pressure deficit (VPD) increases atmospheric demand for water. While increased evapotranspiration (ET) in response to increased atmospheric demand seems intuitive, plants are capable of reducing ET in response to increased VPD by closing their stomata. We examine which effect dominates the response to increasing VPD: atmospheric demand and increases in ET, or plant response (stomata closure) and decreases in ET. We use Penman-Monteith, combined with semi-empirical optimal stomatal regulation theory and underlying water use efficiency, to develop a theoretical framework for assessing ET response to VPD. The theory suggests that depending on the environment and plant characteristics, ET response to increasing VPD can vary from strongly decreasing to increasing, highlighting the diversity of plant water regulation strategies. The ET response varies due to: 1) climate, with tropical and temperate climates more likely to exhibit a positive ET response to increasing VPD than boreal and arctic climates; 2) photosynthesis strategy, with C3 plants more likely to exhibit a positive ET response than C4 plants; and 3) plant type, with crops more likely to exhibit a positive ET response, and shrubs and gymniosperm trees more likely to exhibit a negative ET response. These results, derived from previous literature connecting plant parameters to plant and climate characteristics, highlight the utility of our simplified framework for understanding complex land atmosphere systems in terms of idealized scenarios in which ET responds to VPD only. This response is otherwise challenging to assess in an environment where many processes co-evolve together. |
format |
Text |
author |
Massmann, Adam Gentine, Pierre Lin, Changjie |
author_facet |
Massmann, Adam Gentine, Pierre Lin, Changjie |
author_sort |
Massmann, Adam |
title |
When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
title_short |
When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
title_full |
When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
title_fullStr |
When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
title_full_unstemmed |
When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
title_sort |
when does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001790 |
geographic |
Arctic |
geographic_facet |
Arctic |
genre |
Arctic |
genre_facet |
Arctic |
op_relation |
http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444 Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11. (2019) doi:10.1029/2019MS001790 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001790 |
container_title |
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems |
container_volume |
11 |
container_issue |
10 |
container_start_page |
3305 |
op_container_end_page |
3320 |
_version_ |
1776198693910740992 |