Partitioning of turbulent flux reveals contrasting cooling potential for woody vegetation and grassland during heat waves

Abstract

We compared the capacity of woody versus grassy vegetation covers to buffer high temperatures during heat waves by partitioning turbulent heat between latent (λE) and sensible (H) fluxes, and quantifying advection using the Priestley-Taylor coefficient (α), for a16-year old grassland and an adjoining 6-year old plantation. We found that because λE dominated (>65%) the turbulent flux in the plantation and was at least twice as large as on the grassland (λE < 35% of the turbulent flux) during heat waves, the ambient temperature over the plantation was up to 5• C lower in the afternoon, and averaged 1.2 • C lower for the whole day, compared with the grassland. Both vegetation covers emitted significant amounts of H when soil water availability was limited and also in winter when canopy cover was mostly inactive because of dormancy in the grassland and mutual shading in the plantation due to low solar angle. During the winter, advection of additional energy from surrounding vegetation suppressed λE and reduced α to <1.0 in both vegetation covers. Advection enhanced λE during periods of frequent rainfalls in summer, with mean α rising to 2.6 in the grassland and 3.4 in the plantation. Consistently low λE but high H made the grassland a source rather than a sink for advective energy, while the plantation was the opposite. The broadleaved evergreen woody vegetation consistently maintained a larger λE than the grassland in this mid-latitude environment, contrary to the smaller λE observed over mostly coniferous forests at high (northern) latitudes (>35 • ). Annual evapotranspiration was 54% lower from the grassland (384 mm) than from the plantation (834 mm). Woody vegetation covers dominated by broadleaved species are therefore preferred for buffering extreme high temperatures during heat waves and recommended for rehabilitating degraded landscapes in urban areas. We also present functions for approximating α for soil water limited conditions.

Plant profit maximization improves predictions of European forest responses to drought

“…Therefore, if climate models incorrectly represent vegetation responses to drought, it is likely that they also erroneously represent feedbacks to the boundary layer (Donat et al , ). This hinders the capacity to capture any land surface amplification of climate extremes (Yunusa et al , ; Miralles et al , ).…”

More than carbon sequestration: Biophysical climate benefits of restored savanna woodlands

“…These processes resulted in enhanced cloud formation and convective precipitation over the restored areas. The maintenance of a positive feedback loop between the land surface and the atmosphere is a direct consequence of the ability of deep-rooted trees to extract moisture from the whole soil profile and maintain evapotranspiration during hot and dry conditions 17 44 . In contrast, shallow-rooted rainfed crops and pastures have a limited capacity to maintain this positive feedback.…”

“…The strongest sensitivity to loss of forest and other woody vegetation cover is in arid and semi-arid regions, followed by temperate, tropical, and boreal biomes 10 . In the lower latitudes, forests play an important role in regulating climate at the regional scale by enhancing the partitioning of energy into latent heat, thereby impacting moisture recycling, convective precipitation and cloud formation 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . This ability to maintain evaporative cooling of the land surface is a key biophysical process by which forests regulate the regional climate 9 10 11 12 13 14 .…”

Potential surface hydrologic responses to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and land use and land cover changes

“…An afforestation study focusing on Europe by Galos et al (2013) reported increased precipitation (9-45 mm) and decreased temperature (up to 0.5 C) during summer season. In general, both radiative and non-radiative effect due to LULCC can play an important role in modulating the land surface climate ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010;Bright et al, 2015;Yunusa et al, 2015; Syktus and McAlpine, 2016).…”