Vegetation impact on mean annual evapotranspiration at a global catchment scale

Abstract

[1] Research into the role of catchment vegetation within the hydrologic cycle has a long history in the hydrologic literature. Relationships between vegetation type and catchment evapotranspiration and runoff were primarily assessed through paired catchment studies during the 20th century. Results from over 200 paired catchment studies from around the world have been reported in the literature. Two constraints on utilizing the results from paired catchment studies in the wider domain have been that the catchment areas studied are generally (1) small (<10 km 2 ) and (2) from a narrow range of climate types. The majority of reported paired catchment studies are located in the USA (∼47%) and Australia (∼27%) and experience mainly temperate (Köppen C) and cold (Köppen D) climate types. In this paper we assess the impact of vegetation type on mean annual evapotranspiration through a large, spatially, and climatically diverse data set of 699 catchments from around the world. These catchments are a subset of 861 unregulated catchments considered for the analysis. Spatially averaged precipitation and temperature data, in conjunction with runoff and land cover information, are analyzed to draw broad conclusions about the vegetation impact on mean annual evapotranspiration. In this analysis any vegetation impact signal is assessed through differences in long-term catchment average actual evapotranspiration, defined as precipitation minus runoff, between catchments grouped by vegetation type. This methodology differs from paired catchment studies where vegetation impact is assessed through streamflow responses to a controlled, within catchment, land cover change. The importance of taking the climate type experienced by the catchments into account when assessing the vegetation impact on evapotranspiration is demonstrated. Tropical and temperate forested catchments are found to have statistically significant higher median evapotranspiration, by about 170 mm and 130 mm, respectively, than non-forested catchments. Unexpectedly, cold forested catchments exhibit significantly lower median evapotranspiration, by about 90 mm, than non-forested catchments. No significant difference was found between median evapotranspiration of temperate evergreen and deciduous forested catchments though sample sizes were small. Temperate evergreen needleleaf forested catchments were found to have significantly higher median evapotranspiration than evergreen broadleaf forested catchments though sample sizes were small. The significant temperate forest versus non-forest difference in median evapotranspiration was found to persist for catchments with areas <1,000 km 2 , but not for catchments with areas ≥1,000 km 2 , which is consistent with the suggestion that the vegetation impact on evapotranspiration diminishes as catchment area increases. In summary, the results presented here are consistent with those drawn from reviews of paired catchment results. However, this paper demonstrates the value of a diverse hydroclimatic data set when assessing th...

Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change on Streamflow Using Climate Elasticity in the Luan River Basin, China

“…Elasticity of the aridity index to streamflow. ε p +ε Ep = 1 [39] and ε Ep is a negative value, a larger ε p indicates a larger ε Ep , meaning that a basin with a low streamflow will be more sensitive to climatic variation.…”

Estimating the Effect of Precipitation and Vegetation on Water Yield in Northern China

“…The aridity index, as a function of precipitation and potential evaporation (E 0 /P), represents the degree of drying in a region and can be used as a good representative indicator of climatic conditions [28][29]. Fig.…”

Land cover and water yield: inference problems when comparing catchments with mixed land cover

“…The cited studies performed such an analysis using collated data for 221 (Donohue et al, 2010) to 1508 (Oudin et al, 2008) catchments. They report either a much smaller land cover influence than found in controlled experiments (Zhang et al, 2004;van Dijk et al, 2007;Oudin et al, 2008;Donohue et al, 2010;Peel et al, 2010); no statistically significant influence (Zhang et al, 2004;van Dijk et al, 2007;Oudin et al, 2008;Peel et al, 2010); or even an influence opposite to that which might be anticipated -at least for some land cover classes (Oudin et al, 2008;Peel et al, 2010) or climate types (van Dijk et al, 2007;Peel et al, 2010). It might seem surprising that land cover change would have a marked effect on the water balance of a catchment when it has homogeneous land cover, but not when it has mixed land cover.…”

“…Zhang et al, 2004;Peel et al, 2010). Catchment boundaries were derived from a 9 resolution digital elevation model ( Fig.…”

“…In such data sets, climate is the primary reason for variation in response and therefore needs to be controlled for several studies do this by fitting an additive formulation of a Budyko model 1 (Budyko, 1974) that explicitly represents two (e.g. forest and herbaceous) or a small number of land cover types (Zhang et al, 2004;van Dijk et al, 2007;Oudin et al, 2008;Donohue et al, 2010;Peel et al, 2010). Such an approach has been described as a top-down analysis (sensu Klemeš, 1983;Sivapalan et al, 2003).…”