Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in climate projections


Climate model projections using offline aridity and/or drought indices predict substantial terrestrial drying over the twenty-first century1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. However, these same models also predict an increased runoff12,13,14,15. This contradiction has been linked to an absence of vegetation responses to an elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration [CO2] in offline impact models12,14,16,17. Here we report a close and consistent relationship between changes in surface resistance (rs) and [CO2] across 16 CMIP5 models. Attributing evapotranspiration changes under non-water-limited conditions shows that an increase in evapotranspiration caused by a warming-induced vapour pressure deficit increase18 is almost entirely offset by a decrease in evapotranspiration caused by increased rs driven by rising [CO2]. This indicates that climate models do not actually project increased vegetation water use under an elevated [CO2], which counters the perception that ‘warming leads to drying’ in many previous studies1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Moreover, we show that the hydrologic information in CMIP5 models can be satisfactorily recovered using an offline hydrologic model that incorporates the [CO2] effect on rs in calculating potential evapotranspiration (EP). This offers an effective, physically-based yet relatively simple way to account for the vegetation response to elevated [CO2] in offline impact models.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



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

Fig. 1: Changes in rs over non-water-limited regions and/or months under elevated atmospheric [CO2].
Fig. 2: Attribution of change in ENWL.
Fig. 3: Changes in modelled runoff in the future period 2071–2100 relative to the historic period 1861–1960.

Data availability

The CMIP5 model outputs are available from the CMIP5 archive (


  1. Cook, B. I., Smerdon, J. E., Seager, R. & Coats, S. Global warming and 21st century drying. Clim. Dynam. 43, 2607–2627 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dai, A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 52–58 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Feng, S. & Fu, Q. Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 10081–10094 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fu, Q. & Feng, S. Responses of terrestrial aridity to global warming. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 7863–7875 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Huang, J., Yu, H., Guan, X., Wang, G. & Guo, R. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 166–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin, L., Gettelman, A., Feng, S. & Fu, Q. Simulated climatology and evolution of aridity in the 21st century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 120, 5795–5815 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Park, C.-E. et al. Keeping global warming within 1.5 °C constrains emergence of aridification. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 70–74 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sherwood, S. & Fu, Q. A drier future? Science 343, 737–739 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Trenberth, K. E. et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 17–22 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scheff, J. & Frierson, D. M. W. Terrestrial aridity and its response to greenhouse warming across CMIP5 climate models. J. Clim. 28, 5583–5600 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Naumann, G. et al. Global changes in drought conditions under different levels of warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 3285–3296 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Milly, P. C. D. & Dunne, K. A. Potential evapotranspiration and continental drying. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 946–949 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Greve, P., Roderick, M. L. & Seneviratne, S. I. Simulated changes in aridity from the last glacial maximum to 4xCO2. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114021 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roderick, M. L., Greve, P. & Farquhar, G. D. On the assessment of aridity with changes in atmospheric CO2. Water Resour. Res. 51, 5450–5463 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Scheff, J., Seager, R., Liu, H. & Coats, S. Are glacials dry? Consequences for paleoclimatology and for greenhouse warming. J. Clim. 30, 6593–6609 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Milly, P. C. D. & Dunne, K. A. A hydrologic drying bias in water‐resource impact analyses of anthropogenic climate change. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 53, 822–838 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Swann, A. L. S., Hoffman, F. M., Koven, C. D. & Randerson, J. T. Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10019–10024 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Scheff, J. & Frierson, D. M. W. Scaling potential evapotranspiration with greenhouse warming. J. Clim. 27, 1539–1558 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roderick, M. L., Sun, F., Lim, W. H. & Farquhar, G. D. A general framework for understanding the response of the water cycle to global warming over land and ocean. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 1575–1589 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Samaniego, L. et al. Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 421–426 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shuttleworth, W. J. in Handbook of Hydrology (ed. Maidment, D. R.) Ch. 4 (McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 1993).

  22. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. & Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 (FAO, 1998).

  23. Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F. & Roderick, M. L. Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature 491, 435–438 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Field, C. B., Jackson, R. B. & Mooney, H. A. Stomatal responses to increased CO2: implications from the plant to the global scale. Plant Cell Environ. 18, 1214–1225 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Westra, S. et al. Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall. Rev. Geophys. 52, 522–555 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chou, C. et al. Increase in the range between wet and dry season precipitation. Nat. Geosci. 6, 263–267 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ainsworth, A. E. & 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 

  29. Jasechko, S. et al. Terrestrial water fluxes dominated by transpiration. Nature 496, 347–350 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, Y. et al. Multi-decadal trends in global terrestrial evapotranspiration and its components. Sci. Rep. 6, 19124 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones, P. W. First- and second-order conservative remapping schemes for grids in spherical coordinates. Mon. Weather Rev. 127, 2204–2210 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Choudhury, B. Evaluation of an empirical equation for annual evaporation using field observations and results from a biophysical model. J. Hydrol. 216, 99–110 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Y.Y. and M.R. acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (CE1101028, CE170100023). T.M. and R.D. acknowledge the support from CSIRO Land and Water.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Y.Y., M.R., T.M. and R.D. conceived the idea. Y.Y. and M.R. designed the study. Y.Y. and S.Z. performed the analyses. Y.Y. drafted the manuscript. All the authors contributed to results, discussion and manuscript writing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuting Yang or Michael L. Roderick.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–2, Supplementary Figures 1–8, Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Y., Roderick, M.L., Zhang, S. et al. Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in climate projections. Nature Clim Change 9, 44–48 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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