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
Main Authors: Massmann, Adam, Gentine, Pierre, Lin, Changjie
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: arXiv 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444
id ftdatacite:10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdatacite:10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444 2023-05-15T15:11:29+02:00 When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? Massmann, Adam Gentine, Pierre Lin, Changjie 2018 https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444 https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444 unknown arXiv https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001790 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode cc-by-4.0 CC-BY Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics physics.ao-ph FOS Physical sciences article-journal Article ScholarlyArticle Text 2018 ftdatacite https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001790 2022-04-01T09:41:59Z 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 DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology) Arctic
institution Open Polar
collection DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology)
op_collection_id ftdatacite
language unknown
topic Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics physics.ao-ph
FOS Physical sciences
spellingShingle Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics physics.ao-ph
FOS Physical sciences
Massmann, Adam
Gentine, Pierre
Lin, Changjie
When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration?
topic_facet Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics physics.ao-ph
FOS Physical sciences
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?
publisher arXiv
publishDate 2018
url https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05444
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
genre_facet Arctic
op_relation https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001790
op_rights Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
cc-by-4.0
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1805.05444
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001790
_version_ 1766342334982651904