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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
Main Authors: Massmann, Adam, Gentine, Pierre, Lin, Changjie
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