2016
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential evapotranspiration and continental drying

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

19
476
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 533 publications
(529 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
19
476
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Changing the parameters or conceptualization of the land surface (like we did in this study with the hydrologic models) would therefore influence the GCM projection. Milly and Dunne (2016) demonstrate that an offline application of GCMs to, for example, hydrologic models severely influences the potential evapotranspiration, mainly because (hydrologic) models do not account for changes in stomatal conductance. A fully coupled approach, although computationally expensive in an uncertainty analysis that requires many runs, would therefore give a more realistic overview of the spread in the projections, and could perhaps limit this spread.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Changing the parameters or conceptualization of the land surface (like we did in this study with the hydrologic models) would therefore influence the GCM projection. Milly and Dunne (2016) demonstrate that an offline application of GCMs to, for example, hydrologic models severely influences the potential evapotranspiration, mainly because (hydrologic) models do not account for changes in stomatal conductance. A fully coupled approach, although computationally expensive in an uncertainty analysis that requires many runs, would therefore give a more realistic overview of the spread in the projections, and could perhaps limit this spread.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Keenan et al, 2013). Not accounting for this effect in offline E pot estimations has been shown to lead to an overestimation of continental drying (Milly and Dunne, 2016), which is particularly relevant for drought analyses. Therefore, along with E pot estimates for future time slices using the same r s value as in the baseline (variable pepm), an additional variable (pepm_adjrs) is introduced, which accounts for the impact of CO 2 on stomatal resistance and, therefore, on E pot .…”
Section: Potential Evaporation Estimatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, Betts et al (2007) argue for a dominant global decrease of evapotranspiration induced by a water-saving response to increasing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations. Recent modelling studies have found that ignoring the existence of this water-saving response may overpredict future terrestrial evapotranspiration and drought (Milly and Dunne, 2016;Prudhomme et al, 2014;Swann et al, 2016). Piao et al (2007) argue instead that this physiological effect is cancelled by simultaneous CO 2 -induced increases in plant growth and total canopy leaf area, and that changes in climate and land use are the dominant drivers of evapotranspiration changes.…”
Section: F Jaramillo Et Al: Dominant Effect Of Increasing Forest Bimentioning
confidence: 99%