Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Tree species explain only half of explained spatial variability in plant water sensitivity.
Konings, Alexandra G; Rao, Krishna; McCormick, Erica L; Trugman, Anna T; Williams, A Park; Diffenbaugh, Noah S; Yebra, Marta; Zhao, Meng.
Afiliação
  • Konings AG; Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Rao K; Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
  • McCormick EL; Watershed, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.
  • Trugman AT; Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Williams AP; Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
  • Diffenbaugh NS; Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  • Yebra M; Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Zhao M; Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Glob Chang Biol ; 30(7): e17425, 2024 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39005206
ABSTRACT
Spatiotemporal patterns of plant water uptake, loss, and storage exert a first-order control on photosynthesis and evapotranspiration. Many studies of plant responses to water stress have focused on differences between species because of their different stomatal closure, xylem conductance, and root traits. However, several other ecohydrological factors are also relevant, including soil hydraulics, topographically driven redistribution of water, plant adaptation to local climatic variations, and changes in vegetation density. Here, we seek to understand the relative importance of the dominant species for regional-scale variations in woody plant responses to water stress. We map plant water sensitivity (PWS) based on the response of remotely sensed live fuel moisture content to variations in hydrometeorology using an auto-regressive model. Live fuel moisture content dynamics are informative of PWS because they directly reflect vegetation water content and therefore patterns of plant water uptake and evapotranspiration. The PWS is studied using 21,455 wooded locations containing U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis plots across the western United States, where species cover is known and where a single species is locally dominant. Using a species-specific mean PWS value explains 23% of observed PWS variability. By contrast, a random forest driven by mean vegetation density, mean climate, soil properties, and topographic descriptors explains 43% of observed PWS variability. Thus, the dominant species explains only 53% (23% compared to 43%) of explainable variations in PWS. Mean climate and mean NDVI also exert significant influence on PWS. Our results suggest that studies of differences between species should explicitly consider the environments (climate, soil, topography) in which observations for each species are made, and whether those environments are representative of the entire species range.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Árvores / Água País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Glob Chang Biol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Árvores / Água País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Glob Chang Biol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Reino Unido