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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    & Darcy’s law predicts widespread forest mortality under climate warming. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 669–672 (2015).

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

    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).

  5. 5.

    , , & 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).

  6. 6.

    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).

  7. 7.

    , , & 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).

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

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

  11. 11.

    & Ecohydrology of Water-Controlled Ecosystems - Soil Moisture and Plant Dynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).

  12. 12.

    & Vulnerability of xylem to cavitation and embolism. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 40, 19–36 (1989).

  13. 13.

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

  14. 14.

    & Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 31, 471–505 (1977).

  15. 15.

    & The evolution of mechanisms driving the stomatal response to vapor pressure deficit. Plant Physiol. 167, 833–843 (2015).

  16. 16.

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

  17. 17.

    , , & A stomatal optimization theory to describe the effects of atmospheric CO2 on leaf photosynthesis and transpiration. Ann. Botany 105, 431–442 (2010).

  18. 18.

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

  19. 19.

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

  20. 20.

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

  21. 21.

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

  22. 22.

    Climate and Life (Academic, 1974).

  23. 23.

    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).

  24. 24.

    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).

  25. 25.

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

  26. 26.

    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).

  27. 27.

    , & 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).

  28. 28.

    , & 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).

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    , & 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).

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

Affiliations

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

    • Kimberly A. Novick
  2. Indiana University, Department of Geography, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA

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

    • Paul C. Stoy
  4. Clark University, Graduate School of Geography, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610, USA

    • Christopher A. Williams
  5. The Ohio State University, Department of Civil, 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. University of Colorado, Department of Geography, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0260, USA

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

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

    • Benjamin N. Sulman
  11. Southwest Watershed Research Center, USDA-ARS, Tucson, Arizona 85719, USA

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

    • Lixin Wang
  13. Indiana University, Department of Biology, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA

    • Richard P. Phillips

Authors

  1. Search for Kimberly A. Novick in:

  2. Search for Darren L. Ficklin in:

  3. Search for Paul C. Stoy in:

  4. Search for Christopher A. Williams in:

  5. Search for Gil Bohrer in:

  6. Search for A. Christopher Oishi in:

  7. Search for Shirley A. Papuga in:

  8. Search for Peter D. Blanken in:

  9. Search for Asko Noormets in:

  10. Search for Benjamin N. Sulman in:

  11. Search for Russell L. Scott in:

  12. Search for Lixin Wang in:

  13. Search for Richard P. Phillips in:

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.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly A. Novick.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114

Further reading