replying to Lu et al. Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29009-w (2022)
We read with interest the comments by Lu et al. regarding our study of disentangling soil moisture (SM) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) impacts on ecosystem production (GPP) globally1. The additional analysis provided by Lu et al. contributes to the understanding of the effects of dryness stress on light use efficiency (LUE). However, Lu et al.’s commentary fails to recognize that: (i) LUE is only a contributing factor to GPP, and LUE alone cannot represent the overall GPP response to dryness; (ii) there is strong evidence for SM impacts on LUE as well; (iii) the core metric used by Lu et al. in their analysis is not available from primary observations globally. In the following, we provide additional background on each of these points.
Light use efficiency alone cannot represent GPP’s response to dryness
Lu et al. employ a similar method as in our study (Liu et al.1, hereafter L20) to analyze the LUE relationship with water availability and they suggest based on their analyses that the estimate of the VPD impacts on GPP are underestimated in L20. Based on their comment, it appears that the authors have a misunderstanding regarding the scope of the L20 study since we investigate dryness stress on GPP, rather than on LUE. Following Monteith theory2, GPP is typically formulated as the product of incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), the fraction of absorbed PAR (fPAR), and LUE, such that
\({{{{{\rm{GPP}}}}}}={{{{{\rm{PAR}}}}}}\times {{{{{\rm{fPAR}}}}}}\times {{{{{\rm{LUE}}}}}}\)
In particular, LUE indicates the efficiency of translating absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (in energy units) to final tissue growth (in biomass units). Consequently, although LUE is an essential contributor to GPP (linked to plant physiological response or production efficiency), it cannot be equated with GPP. Hence, independently of whether LUE is more limited by SM or VPD, this relationship alone cannot lead to the conclusion that GPP has the same dependence on SM or VPD. For instance, in addition to LUE, fPAR is strongly modulated by dryness and can capture the ecosystem structure changes induced by dryness, such as leaf wilting or turgor loss. Consequently, fPAR alone contributes largely to the reduction in GPP induced by dryness, which is already well documented3,4,5,6. In addition, in the original paper1, we already tested the possible influence from PAR on the results by standardizing solar-induced fluorescence (SIF) by PAR (i.e., replacing SIF with SIF/PAR), which confirmed the robustness of our findings (see Supplementary Fig. 12 in L20). However, Lu et al. only rely on a constituent component of GPP (i.e., LUE) to assess impacts of dryness on vegetation, and their results do not allow to assess the full GPP response to dryness.
Previously published evidence for SM impacts on LUE
Although the investigation of SM and VPD stress on LUE lies beyond the scope of L20, we note that existing literature that was not referred to by Lu et al. highlights the impacts of SM on LUE as well7,8. It has for example been shown that inter-annual variations of LUE are more strongly linked to water-balance components than to VPD7. Furthermore, recent investigations have identified substantial SM effects on LUE by utilizing observations from a large number of eddy covariance sites8,9. Contrasting these results with the analysis of Lu et al. highlights that whether LUE is more limited by SM or VPD at the global scale is still an open question.
Caveats of data analyzed by Lu et al.
L20 analyzed SIF which is a direct indicator of GPP and is available as primary observation. In contrast, Lu et al. base their analyses on LUE, which is a derived quantity that has to be estimated using several data sets. In particular, Lu et al. approximate LUE using fluorescence quantum yield (SIFyield = SIF/(PAR*fPAR)) which inherits observational uncertainty of all contributing data (i.e., SIF, PAR, and fPAR). For instance, fPAR is known to be affected by cloud and aerosol contaminations and is biased in high biomass regions10. We acknowledge the additional effort made by Lu et al. to validate this LUE estimate using the global FLUXCOM GPP data11. However, while FLUXCOM provides one of the most comprehensive global GPP estimates, it is also important to stress that design-choices underlying this machine-learning based product (e.g., related to the choice of explanatory variables) may introduce biases in subsequent analysis, which were not discussed by Lu et al. In particular, we note that this data product is known to underestimate the influence of water on global carbon fluxes12. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the global estimates of LUE by Lu et al. are subject to uncertainties, weakening the conclusions that can be drawn from their analysis.
Conclusion
The L20 global estimate of dryness stress on GPP is accurately derived and the Lu et al. analysis is not directly relevant for the evaluation of these results. We appreciate the authors’ interest in our study and the fact that they employ the L20 method to look into dryness effects on LUE. Further investigation of dryness stress on GPP’s mechanic components globally could be appealing and is anticipated to further advance the current understanding of terrestrial carbon–water coupling.
Data availability
No new data were generated for this response.
Code availability
No new codes were generated for this response.
References
Liu, L. B. et al. Soil moisture dominates dryness stress on ecosystem production globally. Nat. Commun. 11, 4892 (2020).
Monteith, J. L. Solar-radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 9, 747–766 (1972).
Zscheischler, J., Mahecha, M. D., Harmeling, S. & Reichstein, M. Detection and attribution of large spatiotemporal extreme events in Earth observation data. Ecol. Inform. 15, 66–73 (2013).
Reichstein, M. et al. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature 500, 287–295 (2013).
Sun, Y. et al. Drought onset mechanisms revealed by satellite solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: insights from two contrasting extreme events. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 2427–2440 (2015).
Yoshida, Y. et al. The 2010 Russian drought impact on satellite measurements of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: Insights from modeling and comparisons with parameters derived from satellite reflectances. Remote Sens. Environ. 166, 163–177 (2015).
Garbulsky, M. F. et al. Patterns and controls of the variability of radiation use efficiency and primary productivity across terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 253–267 (2010).
Stocker, B. D. et al. Quantifying soil moisture impacts on light use efficiency across biomes. N. Phytol. 218, 1430–1449 (2018).
Stocker, B. D. et al. Drought impacts on terrestrial primary production underestimated by satellite monitoring. Nat. Geosci. 12, 264 (2019).
Samanta, A., Ganguly, S., Vermote, E., Nemani, R. R. & Myneni, R. B. Why is remote sensing of amazon forest greenness so challenging? Earth Interact. 16, 1–14 (2012).
Tramontana, G. et al. Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with regression algorithms. Biogeosciences 13, 4291–4313 (2016).
Humphrey, V. et al. Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage. Nature 560, 628 (2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.L., S.I.S., and L.G. prepared the response and wrote the paper. M.H. contributed to paper writing.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, L., Gudmundsson, L., Hauser, M. et al. Reply to: Large influence of atmospheric vapor pressure deficit on ecosystem production efficiency. Nat Commun 13, 1654 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29010-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29010-3
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.