The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes | Nature Climate Change
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes

Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 1023–1027 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Soil moisture supply and atmospheric demand for water independently limit—and profoundly affect—vegetation productivity and water use during periods of hydrologic stress1,2,3,4. Disentangling the impact of these two drivers on ecosystem carbon and water cycling is difficult because they are often correlated, and experimental tools for manipulating atmospheric demand in the field are lacking. Consequently, the role of atmospheric demand is often not adequately factored into experiments or represented in models5,6,7. Here we show that atmospheric demand limits surface conductance and evapotranspiration to a greater extent than soil moisture in many biomes, including mesic forests that are of particular importance to the terrestrial carbon sink8,9. Further, using projections from ten general circulation models, we show that climate change will increase the importance of atmospheric constraints to carbon and water fluxes in all ecosystems. Consequently, atmospheric demand will become increasingly important for vegetation function, accounting for >70% of growing season limitation to surface conductance in mesic temperate forests. Our results suggest that failure to consider the limiting role of atmospheric demand in experimental designs, simulation models and land management strategies will lead to incorrect projections of ecosystem responses to future climate conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Conceptual framework.
Figure 2: How the relationship between surface conductance and vapour pressure deficit varies with soil moisture.
Figure 3: Growing season limitations to GS and ET.
Figure 4: The projected shifts in key study variables from present to future climate conditions.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McDowell, N. G. & Allen, C. D. Darcy’s law predicts widespread forest mortality under climate warming. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 669–672 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams, A. P. et al. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 292–297 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jung, M. et al. Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply. Nature 467, 951–954 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schaefer, K. et al. A model-data comparison of gross primary productivity: results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G01010 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonan, G., Williams, M., Fisher, R. & Oleson, K. Modeling stomatal conductance in the earth system: linking leaf water-use efficiency and water transport along the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. Geosci. Model Dev. 7, 2193–2222 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Matheny, A. M. et al. Characterizing the diurnal patterns of errors in the prediction of evapotranspiration by several land-surface models: an NACP analysis. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 1458–1473 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sato, H., Kumagai, T., Takahashi, A. & Katul, G. G. Effects of different representations of stomatal conductance response to humidity across the African continent under warmer CO2-enriched climate conditions. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 979–988 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Peters, W. et al. An atmospheric perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: CarbonTracker. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18925–18930 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Beier, C. et al. Precipitation manipulation experiments–challenges and recommendations for the future. Ecol. Lett. 15, 899–911 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. & Porporato, A. Ecohydrology of Water-Controlled Ecosystems - Soil Moisture and Plant Dynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tyree, M. T. & Sperry, J. S. Vulnerability of xylem to cavitation and embolism. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 40, 19–36 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Oren, R. et al. Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ. 22, 1515–1526 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cowan, I. R. & Farquhar, G. D. Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 31, 471–505 (1977).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McAdam, S. A. & Brodribb, T. J. The evolution of mechanisms driving the stomatal response to vapor pressure deficit. Plant Physiol. 167, 833–843 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lendzion, J. & Leuschner, C. Growth of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) saplings is limited by elevated atmospheric vapour pressure deficits. For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 648–655 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Katul, G., Manzoni, S., Palmroth, S. & Oren, R. A stomatal optimization theory to describe the effects of atmospheric CO2 on leaf photosynthesis and transpiration. Ann. Botany 105, 431–442 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 258–270 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Greve, P. et al. Global assessment of trends in wetting and drying over land. Nat. Geosci. 7, 716–721 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Burke, E. J. & Brown, S. J. Evaluating uncertainties in the projection of future drought. J. Hydrometeorol. 9, 292–299 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Budyko, M. I. Climate and Life (Academic, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Williams, C. A. et al. Climate and vegetation controls on the surface water balance: synthesis of evapotranspiration measured across a global network of flux towers. Wat. Resour. Res. 48, W06523 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Monteith, J. L. in The State and Movement of Water in Living Organisms, Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology Vol. 19 (ed. Fogg, B. D.) 205–234 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Granier, A., Loustau, D. & Breda, N. A generic model of forest canopy conductance dependent on climate, soil water availability and leaf area index. Ann. For. Sci. 57, 755–765 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jarvis, P. The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 273, 593–610 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Novick, K. A., Miniat, C. F. & Vose, J. M. Drought limitations to leaf-level gas exchange: results from a model linking stomatal optimization and cohesion–tension theory. Plant Cell Environ. 39, 583–596 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruehr, N. K., Martin, J. G. & Law, B. E. Effects of water availability on carbon and water exchange in a young ponderosa pine forest: above-and belowground responses. Agric. For. Meteorol. 164, 136–148 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhu, Z. et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 791–795 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bréda, N., Granier, A. & Aussenac, G. Effects of thinning on soil and tree water relations, transpiration and growth in an oak forest (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Tree Physiol. 15, 295–306 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the US Department of Energy for its support of the Ameriflux Management Project administered by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and for its support of the Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Project. We thank the Ameriflux site teams for sharing their data, and the individual climate modelling groups for sharing their model output. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). K.A.N. acknowledges National Science Foundation (NSF) grant DEB 1552747. P.C.S. acknowledges NSF grants DEB 1552976 and EF 1241881. S.A.P. acknowledges NSF grant EAR 125501. L.W. acknowledges NSF grant EAR 155489. B.N.S. acknowledges support from NOAA/GFDL-Princeton University Cooperative Institute for Climate Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA

    Kimberly A. Novick

  2. Department of Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA

    Darren L. Ficklin

  3. Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA

    Paul C. Stoy

  4. Clark University, Graduate School of Geography, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610, USA

    Christopher A. Williams

  5. Department of Civil, The Ohio State University, Environmental & Geodetic Engineering, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA

    Gil Bohrer

  6. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, North Carolina 28763, USA

    A. Christopher Oishi

  7. University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA

    Shirley A. Papuga

  8. Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0260, USA

    Peter D. Blanken

  9. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA

    Asko Noormets

  10. Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA

    Benjamin N. Sulman

  11. Southwest Watershed Research Center, USDA-ARS, Tucson, Arizona 85719, USA

    Russell L. Scott

  12. Department of Earth Sciences, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA

    Lixin Wang

  13. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA

    Richard P. Phillips

Authors
  1. Kimberly A. Novick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darren L. Ficklin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul C. Stoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher A. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gil Bohrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Christopher Oishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shirley A. Papuga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter D. Blanken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Asko Noormets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Benjamin N. Sulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Russell L. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Lixin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Richard P. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.A.N. designed the study and methodology, with substantial input from all co-authors, especially D.L.F., C.A.W. and R.P.P. D.L.F. obtained and processed the future climate projections. K.A.N., G.B., S.A.P., P.D.B., A.N., B.N.S., R.L.S., R.P.P. and P.C.S. contributed ecosystem flux data. All authors contributed to data analysis and interpretation. K.A.N. and D.L.F. drafted the manuscript. All authors commented on and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly A. Novick.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 3677 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Novick, K., Ficklin, D., Stoy, P. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nature Clim Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing