首页> 外文OA文献 >Modeling plant transpiration under limited soil water: comparison of different plant and soil hydraulic parameterizations and preliminary implications for their use in land surface models
【2h】

Modeling plant transpiration under limited soil water: comparison of different plant and soil hydraulic parameterizations and preliminary implications for their use in land surface models

机译:在有限土壤水分下模拟植物蒸腾作用:不同植物和土壤水力参数化的比较及其在土地表面模型中的初步应用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Accurate estimates of how soil water stress affects plant transpiration are crucial for reliable land surface model (LSM) predictions. Current LSMs generally use a water stress factor, β, dependent on soil moisture content, θ, that ranges linearly between β = 1 for unstressed vegetation and β = 0 when wilting point is reached. This paper explores the feasibility of replacing the current approach with equations that use soil water potential as their independent variable, or with a set of equations that involve hydraulic and chemical signaling, thereby ensuring feedbacks between the entire soil–root–xylem–leaf system. A comparison with the original linear θ-based water stress parameterization, and with its improved curvi-linear version, was conducted. Assessment of model suitability was focused on their ability to simulate the correct (as derived from experimental data) curve shape of relative transpiration versus fraction of transpirable soil water. We used model sensitivity analyses under progressive soil drying conditions, employing two commonly used approaches to calculate water retention and hydraulic conductivity curves. Furthermore, for each of these hydraulic parameterizations we used two different parameter sets, for 3 soil texture types; a total of 12 soil hydraulic permutations. Results showed that the resulting transpiration reduction functions (TRFs) varied considerably among the models. The fact that soil hydraulic conductivity played a major role in the model that involved hydraulic and chemical signaling led to unrealistic values of β, and hence TRF, for many soil hydraulic parameter sets. However, this model is much better equipped to simulate the behavior of different plant species. Based on these findings, we only recommend implementation of this approach into LSMs if great care with choice of soil hydraulic parameters is taken
机译:准确估计土壤水分胁迫如何影响植物蒸腾对可靠的土地表面模型(LSM)预测至关重要。当前的LSM通常使用取决于土壤水分含量θ的水分胁迫因子β,该因子线性分布在无应力植被的β= 1和达到枯萎点的β= 0之间。本文探讨了用以土壤水势作为其自变量的方程式或一组涉及水力和化学信号的方程式替代当前方法的可行性,从而确保了整个土壤-根-木质部-叶系统之间的反馈。与原始的基于线性θ的水应力参数化及其改进的曲线版本进行了比较。模型适用性的评估集中于它们模拟相对蒸腾量与可蒸腾的土壤水分数的正确关系(从实验数据中得出)的曲线形状的能力。我们在渐进的土壤干燥条件下使用模型敏感性分析,采用两种常用方法来计算保水率和水力传导率曲线。此外,对于每种水力参数化设置,我们针对3种土壤质地类型使用了两个不同的参数集。总共12个土壤水力排列。结果显示,模型之间的蒸腾作用减少函数(TRF)差异很大。在涉及水力和化学信号的模型中,土壤水力传导率起着主要作用,这一事实导致许多土壤水力参数集的β值和TRF值不切实际。但是,该模型可以更好地模拟不同植物物种的行为。基于这些发现,我们仅建议在谨慎选择土壤水力参数的情况下将此方法应用于LSM。

著录项

  • 作者

    Verhoef Anne; Egea Gregorio;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号