| Literature DB >> 34478589 |
Alexandra G Konings1, Sassan S Saatchi2, Christian Frankenberg3, Michael Keller2,4, Victor Leshyk5, William R L Anderegg6, Vincent Humphrey3, Ashley M Matheny7, Anna Trugman8, Lawren Sack9, Elizabeth Agee10, Mallory L Barnes11, Oliver Binks12, Kerry Cawse-Nicholson2, Bradley O Christoffersen13, Dara Entekhabi14, Pierre Gentine15, Nataniel M Holtzman1, Gabriel G Katul16, Yanlan Liu17, Marcos Longo2, Jordi Martinez-Vilalta18,19, Nate McDowell20,21, Patrick Meir12,22, Maurizio Mencuccini18,23, Assaad Mrad24, Kimberly A Novick11, Rafael S Oliveira25, Paul Siqueira26, Susan C Steele-Dunne27, David R Thompson2, Yujie Wang3, Richard Wehr28, Jeffrey D Wood29, Xiangtao Xu30, Pieter A Zuidema31.
Abstract
Droughts in a warming climate have become more common and more extreme, making understanding forest responses to water stress increasingly pressing. Analysis of water stress in trees has long focused on water potential in xylem and leaves, which influences stomatal closure and water flow through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. At the same time, changes of vegetation water content (VWC) are linked to a range of tree responses, including fluxes of water and carbon, mortality, flammability, and more. Unlike water potential, which requires demanding in situ measurements, VWC can be retrieved from remote sensing measurements, particularly at microwave frequencies using radar and radiometry. Here, we highlight key frontiers through which VWC has the potential to significantly increase our understanding of forest responses to water stress. To validate remote sensing observations of VWC at landscape scale and to better relate them to data assimilation model parameters, we introduce an ecosystem-scale analog of the pressure-volume curve, the non-linear relationship between average leaf or branch water potential and water content commonly used in plant hydraulics. The sources of variability in these ecosystem-scale pressure-volume curves and their relationship to forest response to water stress are discussed. We further show to what extent diel, seasonal, and decadal dynamics of VWC reflect variations in different processes relating the tree response to water stress. VWC can also be used for inferring belowground conditions-which are difficult to impossible to observe directly. Lastly, we discuss how a dedicated geostationary spaceborne observational system for VWC, when combined with existing datasets, can capture diel and seasonal water dynamics to advance the science and applications of global forest vulnerability to future droughts.Entities:
Keywords: drought response; drought-induced tree mortality; microwave remote sensing; pressure-volume; vegetation optical depth; vegetation water content; water potential
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34478589 PMCID: PMC9293345 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15872
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Chang Biol ISSN: 1354-1013 Impact factor: 13.211
FIGURE 1Changes in water content drive forest changes at diurnal (inner ring), seasonal (middle ring), and decadal (outer ring) timescales. Across decadal‐scale responses, declines in VWC can lead to mortality and/or fire. VWC will also increase in concert with successional dynamics. Across dry and wet seasons, forest VWC evolves through both phenology and de‐/rehydration. Lastly, VWC has a strong diurnal cycle driven by the diurnal cycle of ET
FIGURE 2Variations of radar backscatter measurements across the Amazon Basin. Radar backscatter coefficients at Ku‐band are used as a proxy for changes of canopy water content showing: (a) spatial variations as an RGB color composite of QuikSCAT (QSCAT) radar backscatter in the months of April, July, and October capturing regional and seasonal changes, (b) seasonal cycle of QSCAT backscatter averaged across two regions in southwest and northeast of the Amazon, (c) diurnal cycle of the same regions detected by the RapidSCAT satellite observations onboard International Space Station from 2014 to 2016, and (d) time series of QSCAT backscatter capturing seasonal and interannual variations including extreme droughts of 2005 in the southwest of the Amazon
FIGURE 3Microwave remote sensing is able to observe water content in forests. The canopy layers represented in each measurement (the penetration depth) varies across different microwave frequency bands (and thus different wavelengths), as show through different red and blue electromagnetic waves. Observations represent deeper areas of the canopy as wavelengths increase (and frequencies decrease) from Ku‐band across X‐, C‐, and L‐bands to P‐band. Higher frequencies are most sensitive to leaves and branches while lower frequencies also have increasing sensitivity to trunks and soils. Red waves represent transmissions on a radar system while blue waves represent the returns, with dots at the end of each wave representing different magnitude backscatter coefficient measurements depending on the water content (colorbar) of the different vegetation components each wavelength is sensitive to. If only the blue waves are considered and the dots are interpreted as measurements of VOD, the figure is representative of a radiometer system instead
FIGURE 4What can vegetation water content tell us about plant stress? The absolute value of VWC (panel a, shown as mid‐day values) is difficult to interpret without context about its maximum and critically limiting values (e.g., the VWCcritical). For example, while Ecosystem B initially has higher absolute VWC than Ecosystem A, its VWCcritica is also higher. When VWC is expressed as a relative value compared to the seasonal maximum (panel b), Ecosystem B emerges as consistently more stressed than A, with the difference between the two reflecting traits, structure, as well as environmental states (soil water potential, VPD). The time derivative of relative VWC (panel C) illustrates that the time change in VWC can be zero for both very stressed and very unstressed ecosystems, but the change in d|VWC|/dt over periods of weeks to months is highly informative of the ecosystem water status. On the right side, panel (d) shows differences in the diurnal amplitude of relative VWC for ecosystems experiencing little stress (A), intermediate (A1), and more severe stress (B). Panel (e) shows long‐term (interannual) changes in absolute VWC attributable to succession, disturbance, and demographic shifts
Applications of remotely sensed vegetation water content, relative water content at ecosystem scale (VWCeco, normalized by its maximum value), water potential (Ψ), and the ecosystem Ψ‐WC curve (eco Ψ‐WC)
| VWC | VWCeco | Ψ | Eco Ψ‐WC |
|---|---|---|---|
|
· Estimation of water distribution throughout the ecosystem and its dynamics with time, and environmental change · Can be directly converted to an ecosystem‐scale live fuel moisture content for fire risk estimation, by dividing VWC by aboveground dry biomass. · VWC may also predict drought‐induced mortality in trees | ·Thresholds for stomatal control, photosynthesis, wood growth, embolism, hydraulic dysfunction, mortality, etc., for a given tree or tissue and potentially ecosystems. |
·Thresholds for stomatal control, photosynthesis, wood growth, embolism, hydraulic dysfunction, mortality, etc., for a given tree or tissue and potentially ecosystems ·Overall driving forces for water flows at landscape, community, and ecosystem scale · Additional signal regarding tissues and belowground soil water potential ·Given known hydraulic conductances and capacitances, estimates of flows through given components of the system at any scale |
· Scaling up phenomena from cells to organs, to plants, to ecosystem · Determination of water allocation throughout the forest including shifts in storage · Transfer function for data assimilation of remotely sensed VWC or VWC validation campaigns · Clarification of the most informative water status thresholds for loss of function throughout the ecosystem · May yield ecosystem Ψ‐WC parameters useful for comparative assessment of drought tolerance and water relations across space and time |
FIGURE 5Vertical distributions of tissue‐specific water retention properties (RWC – Ψ curves), biomass, and sensor penetration depth all jointly determine remotely sensed water content and its temporal variation. Several hypothesized curves delineating gradients of capacitance, defined as the change in relative water content relative to that of water potential (C = ΔRWC/ΔΨ) are shown. Therefore, temporal variation in remotely sensed metrics of VWC will be determined not only by temporal variation in Ψ, but by potentially large differences in the exchangeability of water in response to changes in Ψ across different plant tissues, and the response of sensor penetration depth to changes in water content
FIGURE 6Conceptual diagram showing the complexity of vegetation–soil water dynamics viewed in the dimensionality–nonlinearity plane. The red dashed box shows the near‐term research direction for inferring belowground dynamics enabled by new observations of VWC from remote sensing. A diurnal hysteresis between VWC and soil water cannot be captured with traditional ecohydrological models that consider a single land surface water pool (n=1) and can only be explained with a two (or greater) pool framework (n≥2), which further allows for inference of vegetation water uptake based on the timing and magnitude of the hysteresis. Figure adapted from Strogatz (2015)
FIGURE 7Example phase diagram of simulated dynamics of VWC and root‐zone soil moisture content for a model test bed site in an Amazon moist forest using a hydraulics‐enabled terrestrial biosphere model (ED‐2.2‐hydro, Xu et al., 2021). The diurnal hysteresis (closed curves in black between VWC and soil water cannot be captured with traditional ecohydrological models that consider a single land surface water pool (n=1 in Figure 6). Such hysteresis can only be explained with a two(or more)‐pool framework (n>=2 in Figure 6), which further allows for inference of vegetation water uptake based on the timing and magnitude of the hysteresis
Relationship between science and application goals and instrument functional requirements (as driven by the measurement requirements and science and application objectives necessary to meet the science and application goals) for a proposed set of new satellite observations
| Science and application goals | Science and applications hypotheses | Measurement requirements | Instrument functional requirements | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How do forest ecosystems respond to droughts in a changing climate? | There is a water content threshold beyond which tree mortality and flammability increase and productivity decline |
| ||
| Landscape‐scale VWC of forest ecosystems at 1σ < 1‐kg/m2 accuracy | Radar reflectivity at spatial resolutions of 1–3 km |
X‐band, Ku‐band, or multiple frequency (Ku‐ & L‐band) scatterometer or SAR Multiple polarization (HH, VV, HV) geostationary platform or collection of smallsats that provides observations several times a day Large swath to cover North and South Americas (50oN ‐ 50oS) at 1–3 day repeat cycle | ||
| Major resistance to water flux in forests is determined by changes in top‐canopy water content and its link to available soil water. | Diel changes of VWC at relative accuracy of 1σ < 10% | Radar reflectivity during day and night at multiple times throughout the day | ||
| Available soil water and the atmospheric environment will drive how well and how fast biomes adapt to climate change and shifts in seasonality | Seasonal changes of VWC at 1σ < 10% relative accuracy | Radar reflectivity at 1–3 day repeat cycle over minimum 3–5 years | ||
|
Forecasting wildfires in forests and impacts of droughts on agriculture systems | VWC determines fire fuel risk and drought resilience of crops |
| ||
| Daily to interstorm changes of VWC at 1σ < 10% relative accuracy | Radar reflectivity at 1–3 km spatial resolution |
X‐ or Ku‐band Multiple polarizations (HH, VV, HV) 1–3 day repeat cycle < 1‐km spatial resolution | ||