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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |