Corrigendum: Contrasting response of grassland versus forest carbon and water fluxes to spring drought in Switzerland (2013
                    <i>Environ. Res. Lett</i>
                    . 8 035007)

Wolf, Sebastian; Eugster, Werner; Ammann, Christof; Häni, Matthias; Zielis, S.; Hiller, Rebecca; Stieger, J.; Imer, D.; Merbold, Lutz; Buchmann, Nina

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/089501

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This made grassland a major heating source in the long run, despite that sensible heating was twice as high over forest than over grassland initially. A similar divergence between forests and grasslands was also observed with eddy covariance measurements during the springtime in 2003 over Switzerland (Wolf et al, ). Li et al () compared the flux measurements over an urban site and a rural site and found that in response to the increase of net radiation under HW conditions, the urban site tends to have increased sensible heat flux while the rural site tends to have increased latent heat flux.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Contrasting Evaporative Responses of Ecosystems to Heatwaves Traced to the Opposing Roles of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Surface Resistance

Wang

Liao

et al. 2019

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the evaporative response of ecosystems to heatwaves is critical for managing ecosystem services and water resources, especially under a changing climate. In this study, we examine the land-atmosphere exchange of water and heat fluxes under heatwave and nonheatwave conditions across five different land cover types, including grasslands, shrublands, croplands, deciduous broadleaf forests, and evergreen needleleaf forests, using data from eddy covariance towers. Results show that net radiation and sensible heat flux increase from nonheatwave to heatwave conditions across all five land cover types but latent heat flux shows contrasting responses to heatwaves. An attribution analysis further demonstrates that heatwave-induced changes in evaporative fraction are mainly caused by changes in vapor pressure deficit (positive contribution) and changes in surface resistance (negative contribution). The imbalance between the positive and negative contributions varies across the five land cover types and is responsible for their contrasting evaporative responses to heatwaves.Plain Language Summary A heatwave is a period of extremely hot weather. Under a warming climate, heatwaves are expected to become more frequent, stronger, and longer lasting. Heatwaves are amongst the deadliest natural disasters. Within such contexts, key questions that need to be addressed include how different ecosystems respond to heatwaves differently and, more importantly, what factors control such contrasting responses. In this study, we employ an analytical attribution framework and combine it with observational data to explore the responses of evaporative fraction, a key indicator of the partition between sensible and latent heat fluxes, to heatwaves over five major land cover types. We quantify the contributions of various land surface and atmospheric factors in controlling changes in the evaporative fraction under heatwaves. Our analysis indicates that the vapor pressure deficit and surface resistance are the dominant factors but play opposing roles, with changes in the vapor pressure deficit enhancing the evaporative fraction but changes in the surface resistance reducing the evaporative fraction. Their relative contributions vary across land cover types, thereby explaining the contrasting ecosystem responses to heatwaves. By identifying the key factors controlling the ecosystem responses to heatwaves, our results provide novel insights into how to manage ecosystem services and water resources. Key Points:• Observations indicate that responses of evaporative fraction to heatwaves vary across land cover types • An analytical attribution method is employed to quantify the relative roles of surface and atmospheric factors • Heatwave-induced changes in evaporative fraction are mainly caused by changes in vapor pressure deficit and surface resistanceSupporting Information:• Supporting Information S1

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Contrasting Evaporative Responses of Ecosystems to Heatwaves Traced to the Opposing Roles of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Surface Resistance

Wang

Liao

et al. 2019

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we calculated the standardized anomaly for each yearly aggregated driver by normalizing the time series with its 32 year mean and standard deviation [Wilks, 2011]. For each tower site, the standardized anomaly illustrated the relative distribution of driver conditions within and outside the flux measurement periods ( Table 2).…”

Section: Statistical and Analysis Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Noticeably, breakpoints within the time series of diurnal temperature range were detected at~176 sites, of which the majority (93%) occurred before the periods with flux measurements (Figures S5a-S5c and S5e-S5g).Most of the aforementioned region years with climatic anomalies and extremes were documented in previous studies, such as large-scale droughts(e.g., 2003(e.g., Europe, 2003(e.g., -2004 western U.S., 2011 southern U.S., and 2012 Midwest U.S.)[Ciais et al, 2005;Coumou and Rahmstorf, 2012;Mallya et al, 2013;Parazoo et al, 2015;Schwalm et al, 2012;Wolf et al, 2016], heat waves (e.g., 2003 summer Europe and 2012 North America)[Ault et al, 2013;Ciais et al, 2005;Karl et al, 2012;Wuebbles et al, 2014], and high precipitation causing flooding (e.g., 2010-2011 Australia and 2007 summer western Europe)[Bastos et al, 2013;Coumou and Rahmstorf, 2012;Haverd et al, 2013]. To the best of our knowledge, only a few of those extreme events have been studied extensively for their effects on CO 2 and energy fluxes across sites and regions [e.g.,Bastos et al, 2013;Chu et al, 2016;Ciais et al, 2005;Schwalm et al, 2012;Wolf et al, 2013Wolf et al, , 2016Zscheischler et al, 2014]. These "hot spots" (region years) of climate extremes pointed out potential areas of future region-wide syntheses by using the new FLUXNET data set.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Fluxes all of the time? A primer on the temporal representativeness of FLUXNET

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FLUXNET, the global network of eddy covariance flux towers, provides the largest synthesized data set of CO2, H2O, and energy fluxes. To achieve the ultimate goal of providing flux information “everywhere and all of the time,” studies have attempted to address the representativeness issue, i.e., whether measurements taken in a set of given locations and measurement periods can be extrapolated to a space‐ and time‐explicit extent (e.g., terrestrial globe, 1982–2013 climatological baseline). This study focuses on the temporal representativeness of FLUXNET and tests whether site‐specific measurement periods are sufficient to capture the natural variability of climatological and biological conditions. FLUXNET is unevenly representative across sites in terms of the measurement lengths and potentials of extrapolation in time. Similarity of driver conditions among years generally enables the extrapolation of flux information beyond measurement periods. Yet such extrapolation potentials are further constrained by site‐specific variability of driver conditions. Several driver variables such as air temperature, diurnal temperature range, potential evapotranspiration, and normalized difference vegetation index had detectable trends and/or breakpoints within the baseline period, and flux measurements generally covered similar and biased conditions in those drivers. About 38% and 60% of FLUXNET sites adequately sampled the mean conditions and interannual variability of all driver conditions, respectively. For long‐record sites (≥15 years) the percentages increased to 59% and 69%, respectively. However, the justification of temporal representativeness should not rely solely on the lengths of measurements. Whenever possible, site‐specific consideration (e.g., trend, breakpoint, and interannual variability in drivers) should be taken into account.

show abstract

“…Additionally, both the management (grass cutting) and water availability in the two dry years have a large impact on daily 𝐺𝑃 𝑃 , i.e., result in a substantial reduction of primary production in summer compared to average years. The effects of droughts, characterized by low soil moisture levels, on net ecosystem exchange and gross primary production has been documented in several studies, including (Wolf et al, 2014;Zhang et al, 2016;von Buttlar et al, 2018;Stocker et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2020). With a focus on the 2018 European dry spell, the effects have been investigated based on eddy-covariance (EC) measurements by Fu et al (2020), Ramonet et al (2020), Thompson et al (2020), Gharun et al (2020): In general, these recent studies show that the carbon uptake was lower in 2018 compared to normal years in regions where conditions were dry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Year Eddy-Covariance Measurements at a Pre-Alpine Humid Grassland Site: Dataset Overview, Drought Responses, and Effects of Land Management

Michel¹

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corrigendum: Contrasting response of grassland versus forest carbon and water fluxes to spring drought in Switzerland (2013 Environ. Res. Lett . 8 035007)

Cited by 11 publications

References 29 publications

Contrasting Evaporative Responses of Ecosystems to Heatwaves Traced to the Opposing Roles of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Surface Resistance

Contrasting Evaporative Responses of Ecosystems to Heatwaves Traced to the Opposing Roles of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Surface Resistance

Fluxes all of the time? A primer on the temporal representativeness of FLUXNET

Multi-Year Eddy-Covariance Measurements at a Pre-Alpine Humid Grassland Site: Dataset Overview, Drought Responses, and Effects of Land Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About