How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water-use efficiency compare?
LIN, Yan-Shih
Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières [devient SILVA en 2018] [EEF]
Department of Biological Science
Voir plus >
Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières [devient SILVA en 2018] [EEF]
Department of Biological Science
LIN, Yan-Shih
Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières [devient SILVA en 2018] [EEF]
Department of Biological Science
Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières [devient SILVA en 2018] [EEF]
Department of Biological Science
KNAUER, Jürgen
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment [Richmond] [HIE]
Department of Biogeochemical Integration [Jena]
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment [Richmond] [HIE]
Department of Biogeochemical Integration [Jena]
WILLIAMS, Christopher A.
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment [Richmond] [HIE]
Graduate School of Geography
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment [Richmond] [HIE]
Graduate School of Geography
ARNETH, Almut
Institut für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung - Atmosphärische Umweltforschung [IMK-IFU]
Institut für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung - Atmosphärische Umweltforschung [IMK-IFU]
LIMOUSIN, Jean-Marc
Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive [CEFE]
Université de Montpellier [UM]
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique [CNRS]
< Réduire
Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive [CEFE]
Université de Montpellier [UM]
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique [CNRS]
Langue
en
Article de revue
Ce document a été publié dans
New Phytologist. 2017, vol. Epub ahead of print, n° 3, p. np
Wiley
Résumé en anglais
The terrestrial carbon and water cycles are intimately linked: the carbon cycle is driven by photosynthesis, while the water balance is dominated by transpiration, and both fluxes are controlled by plant stomatal conductance. ...Lire la suite >
The terrestrial carbon and water cycles are intimately linked: the carbon cycle is driven by photosynthesis, while the water balance is dominated by transpiration, and both fluxes are controlled by plant stomatal conductance. The ratio between these fluxes, the plant water-use efficiency (WUE), is a useful indicator of vegetation function. WUE can be estimated using several techniques, including leaf gas exchange, stable isotope discrimination, and eddy covariance. Here we compare global compilations of data for each of these three techniques. We show that patterns of variation in WUE across plant functional types (PFTs) are not consistent among the three datasets. Key discrepancies include the following: leaf-scale data indicate differences between needleleaf and broadleaf forests, but ecosystem-scale data do not; leaf-scale data indicate differences between C3 and C4 species, whereas at ecosystem scale there is a difference between C3 and C4 crops but not grasslands; and isotope-based estimates of WUE are higher than estimates based on gas exchange for most PFTs. Our study quantifies the uncertainty associated with different methods of measuring WUE, indicates potential for bias when using WUE measures to parameterize or validate models, and indicates key research directions needed to reconcile alternative measures of WUE.< Réduire
Mots clés
dynamique des écosystèmes
Efficience d'utilisation de l'eau
cycle du carbone
photosynthèse
conductance stomatique
utilisation de l'eau
réserve en eau de la plante
covariance
bilan hydrique
isotope stable
Mots clés en anglais
eddy covariance
leaf gas exchange
plant functional type (PFT)
stable isotopes
stomatal conductance
water-use efficiency
carbon cycle
photosynthesis
Projet Européen
AgreenSkills+
Origine
Importé de halUnités de recherche