| Literature DB >> 28216656 |
Qing-Hai Song1,2, Xue-Hai Fei1,2,3, Yi-Ping Zhang1,2,4, Li-Qing Sha1,2, Yun-Tong Liu1,2, Wen-Jun Zhou1,2, Chuan-Sheng Wu1,2,3, Zhi-Yun Lu1,4, Kang Luo1,3,4, Jin-Bo Gao1,2,3, Yu-Hong Liu1,4.
Abstract
We calculated water use efficiency (WUE) using measures of gross primary production (GPP) and evapotranspiration (ET) from five years of continuous eddy covariance measurements (2009-2013) obtained over a primary subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest in southwestern China. Annual mean WUE exhibited a decreasing trend from 2009 to 2013, varying from ~2.28 to 2.68 g C kg H2O-1. The multiyear average WUE was 2.48 ± 0.17 (mean ± standard deviation) g C kg H2O-1. WUE increased greatly in the driest year (2009), due to a larger decline in ET than in GPP. At the diurnal scale, WUE in the wet season reached 5.1 g C kg H2O-1 in the early morning and 4.6 g C kg H2O-1 in the evening. WUE in the dry season reached 3.1 g C kg H2O-1 in the early morning and 2.7 g C kg H2O-1 in the evening. During the leaf emergence stage, the variation of WUE could be suitably explained by water-related variables (relative humidity (RH), soil water content at 100 cm (SWC_100)), solar radiation and the green index (Sgreen). These results revealed large variation in WUE at different time scales, highlighting the importance of individual site characteristics.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28216656 PMCID: PMC5316949 DOI: 10.1038/srep43031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The location of the study site (ALS: Ailaoshan).
The figure was created using Arcgis 8.2 software (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA) (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgis-for-desktop).
Figure 2The diurnal dynamic of water use efficiency (WUE; a) and underlying water use efficiency (UWUE; b) with 30 min data in dry and wet season.
Figure 3Annual variability of WUE (a) and UWUE (b) (grey bars indicate the wet season).
Annual mean GPP, ET, Water vapor pressure deficit (VPD), WUE and UWUE in the five years.
| Year | GPP g C m−2 year−1 | ET kg H2O m−2 year−1 | VPD hPa | WUE g C kg H2O−1 | UWUEg C hPa0.5 kg H2O−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2106 | 785 | 3.14 | 2.68 | 4.76 |
| 2010 | 2315 | 905 | 3.15 | 2.56 | 4.54 |
| 2011 | 2214 | 864 | 3.17 | 2.56 | 4.56 |
| 2012 | 2092 | 901 | 3.36 | 2.32 | 4.26 |
| 2013 | 1966 | 862 | 3.68 | 2.28 | 4.38 |
Figure 4Inter-annual variation of water use efficiency (WUE) and underlying water use efficiency (UWUE).
Figure 5Annual cycles of (a) air temperature (Ta) and relative humidity (RH), (b) water vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (c) solar radiation (Rg), and (d) soil water content (SWC) (grey bars indicate the wet season).
Figure 6Green index values for the forest canopy.
(I) leaf emergence stage, (II) leaf development stage, and (III) leaf senescence stage.
Pearson’s correlation between variables and water use efficiency in the different stages.
| Leaf emergence | Leaf development | Leaf senescence | Whole year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ta | −0.019 | 0.421** | −0.225 | 0.140** |
| RH | 0.675** | −0.336** | 0.483** | 0.645** |
| Rg | −0.585** | 0.226 | −0.484** | −0.523** |
| SWC_5 | −0.204 | −0.082 | −0.237 | 0.206** |
| SWC_100 | 0.414** | −0.184 | −0.052 | 0.485** |
| P | 0.223 | −0.168 | −0.191 | 0.025 |
| Sgreen | 0.385** | 0.078 | 0.102 | −0.019* |
Single and double asterisks indicate statistical significance at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Figure 7The impact of the 2009–2010 drought on ecosystem water use efficiency: (a) mean precipitation in normal years (2011–2013); (b) rainfall anomalies: precipitation in 2009–2010 minus mean precipitation; (c) soil moisture in 5 cm depth; (d) soil moisture in 100 cm depth; (e) gross primary production; (f) evapotranspiration; and (g) water use efficiency. Black bars represent values during September 2009 to April 2010, and grey bars indicate other normal year mean values.