Estimation and analysis of the ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration in forest ecosystems along the North-South Transect of East China

doi:10.1007/s11442-019-1691-1

Abstract

Abstract:

The ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration (T/ET) is a key parameter for quantifying water use efficiency of ecosystems and understanding the interaction between ecosystem carbon uptake and water cycling in the context of global change. The estimation of T/ET has been paid increasing attention from the scientific community in recent years globally. In this paper, we used the Priestly-Taylor Jet Propulsion Laboratory Model (PT-JPL) driven by regional remote sensing data and gridded meteorological data, to simulate the T/ET in forest ecosystems along the North-South Transect of East China (NSTEC) during 2001-2010, and to analyze the spatial distribution and temporal variation of T/ET, as well as the factors influencing the variation in T/ET. The results showed that: (1) The PT-JPL model is suitable for the simulation of evapotranspiration and its components of forest ecosystems in Eastern China, and has relatively good stability and reliability. (2) Spatial distribution of T/ET in forest ecosystems along NSTEC was heterogeneous, i.e., T/ET was higher in the north and lower in the south, with an averaged value of 0.69; and the inter-annual variation of T/ET showed a significantly increasing trend, with an increment of 0.007/yr (p<0.01). (3) Seasonal and inter-annual variations of T/ET had different dominant factors. Temperature and EVI can explain around 90% (p<0.01) of the seasonal variation in T/ET, while the inter-annual variation in T/ET was mainly controlled by EVI (53%, p<0.05).

Key words: The North-South Transect of East China (NSTEC), forest ecosystems, ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration (T/ET), water use efficiency (WUE)

REN Xiaoli, LU Qianqian, HE Honglin, ZHANG Li, NIU Zhongen. Estimation and analysis of the ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration in forest ecosystems along the North-South Transect of East China[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(11): 1807-1822.

Figures/Tables 13

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

References 31

[1]	Berkelhammer M, Noone D C, Wong T E et al., 2016. Convergent approaches to determine an ecosystem’s transpiration fraction. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 30(6):933-951.
[2]	Cheng L, Zhang L, Wang Y P et al., 2017. Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nature Communications, 8:110. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00114-5.
[3]	Coenders-Gerrits A M J, van der Ent R J, Bogaard T A et al., 2014. Uncertainties in transpiration estimates. Nature, 506(7487):E1-E2.
[4]	Fatichi S, Pappas C , 2017. Constrained variability of modeled T:ET ratio across biomes. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(13):6795-6803.
[5]	Fisher J B, Tu K P, Baldocchi D D , 2008. Global estimates of the land-atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(3):901-919.
[6]	Gao Y H, Liu X X, Min C C et al., 2013. Estimation of the North-South Transect of Eastern China forest biomass using remote sensing and forest inventory data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 34(15):5598-5610.
[7]	Gao Y, Zhu X J, Yu G R et al., 2014. Water use efficiency threshold for terrestrial ecosystem carbon sequestration in China under afforestation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 195:32-37. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.010.
[8]	Good S P, Noone D, Bowen G , 2015. Hydrologic connectivity constrains partitioning of global terrestrial water fluxes. Science, 349(6244):175-177.
[9]	Hu Z M, Yu G R, Wang Q F et al., 2009a. Ecosystem level water use efficiency: A review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29(3):1498-1507. (in Chinese)
[10]	Hu Z M, Yu G R, Zhou Y L et al., 2009b. Partitioning of evapotranspiration and its controls in four grassland ecosystems: Application of a two-source model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(9):1410-1420.
[11]	Jasechko S, Sharp Z D, Gibson J J et al., 2013. Terrestrial water fluxes dominated by transpiration. Nature, 496(7445):347-351.
[12]	Lawrence D M, Thornton P E, Oleson K W et al., 2007. The partitioning of evapotranspiration into transpiration, soil evaporation, and canopy evaporation in a GCM: Impacts on land-atmosphere interaction. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 8(4):862-880.
[13]	Lu Q Q, He H L, Zhu X J et al., 2015. Study on the variations of forest evapotranspiration and its components in eastern China. Journal of Natural Resources, 30(9):1436-1448. (in Chinese)
[14]	Maxwell R M, Condon L E , 2016. Connections between groundwater flow and transpiration partitioning. Science, 353(6297):377-380.
[15]	Miralles D G, De Jeu R A M, Gash J H et al., 2011. Magnitude and variability of land evaporation and its components at the global scale. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(3):967-981.
[16]	Miralles D G, Jimenez C, Jung M et al., 2016. The WACMOS-ET project - Part 2: Evaluation of global terrestrial evaporation data sets. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(2):823-842.
[17]	Quan Q, Zhang F Y, Tian D S et al., 2018. Transpiration dominates ecosystem water-use efficiency in response to warming in an alpine meadow. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 123(2):453-462.
[18]	Schlesinger W H, Jasechko S , 2014. Transpiration in the global water cycle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 189:115-117. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.011.
[19]	Scott R L, Biederman J A , 2017. Partitioning evapotranspiration using long-term carbon dioxide and water vapor fluxes. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(13):6833-6840.
[20]	Wang-Erlandsson L, van der Ent R J, Gordon L J et al., 2014. Contrasting roles of interception and transpiration in the hydrological cycle - Part 1: Temporal characteristics over land. Earth System Dynamics, 5(2):441-469.
[21]	Wang K C, Dickinson R E , 2012. A Review of Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration: Observation, Modeling, Climatology, and Climatic Variability. Reviews of Geophysics, 50: RG2005. doi: 10.1029/2011RG000373.
[22]	Wang L X, Good S P, Caylor K K , 2014. Global synthesis of vegetation control on evapotranspiration partitioning. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(19):6753-6757.
[23]	Wei H Q, He H L, LIu M et al., 2012. Modeling evapotranspiration and its components in Qianyanzhou plantation based on remote sensing data. Journal of Natural Resources, 27(5):778-789. (in Chinese)
[24]	Wei Z W, Yoshimura K, Wang L X et al., 2017. Revisiting the contribution of transpiration to global terrestrial evapotranspiration. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(6):2792-2801.
[25]	Wu H S, Liu H P, Huang D J , 1998. Interception of Precipitation in Dinghushan Evergreen Broadleaf Forest. Research of Forest Ecosystems in Subtropical and Tropical Regions. Beijing: China Meteorological Press. (in Chinese)
[26]	Xu M J, Wen X F, Wang H M et al., 2014. Effects of climatic factors and ecosystem responses on the inter-annual variability of evapotranspiration in a coniferous plantation in subtropical China. Plos One, 9(1):e85593. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085593.
[27]	Yu G R, Wang Q F , 2010. Ecophysiology of Plant Photosynthesis, Transpiration, and Water Use. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
[28]	Yu G R, Zhang L M, Sun X M et al., 2008. Environmental controls over carbon exchange of three forest ecosystems in eastern China. Global Change Biology, 14(11):2555-2571.
[29]	Zhang L X, Hu Z M, Fan J W et al., 2014. A meta-analysis of the canopy light extinction coefficient in terrestrial ecosystems. Frontiers of Earth Science, 8(4):599-609.
[30]	Zhou S, Yu B F, Zhang Y et al., 2016. Partitioning evapotranspiration based on the concept of underlying water use efficiency. Water Resources Research, 52(2):1160-1175.
[31]	Zhu X J, Yu G R, Hu Z M et al., 2015. Spatiotemporal variations of T/ET (the ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration) in three forests of eastern China. Ecological Indicators, 52:411-421. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.030.

ID	Forest type	β	k_par
1	Cold temperate-temperate coniferous forest	1	0.45
2	Temperate-subtropical deciduous broadleaved forest	1	0.59
3	Temperate coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest	1.8	0.4
4	Subtropical-tropical evergreen coniferous forest	1.5	0.3
5	Subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest	1.5	0.3
6	Subtropical evergreen and deciduous broadleaved mixed forest	1	0.59
7	Tropical-rainforest evergreen broadleaved forest	1	0.59