Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment Western Sydney University Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia
Department of Biological Science Macquarie University North Ryde NSW 2109 Australia
Department of Biological Science Macquarie University North Ryde NSW 2109 Australia, Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières Centre INRA de Nancy‐Lorraine Route d'Amance Champenoux 54280 France
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment Western Sydney University Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia, Department of Biogeochemical Integration Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry Jena 07745 Germany
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment Western Sydney University Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia, Graduate School of Geography Clark University 950 Main Street Worcester MA 01602 USA
Department of Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK‐IFU) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19 Garmisch‐Partenkirchen 82467 Germany
School of Geosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH9 3FF UK
OzFlux Melbourne Vic. 3159 Australia
Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive CEFE, UMR 5175 CNRS – Université de Montpellier – Université Paul‐Valéry Montpellier – EPHE 1919 Route de Mende Montpellier Cedex 5 34293 France
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science Lund University Sölvegatan 12 Lund SE 262 33 Sweden
School of Geosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH9 3FF UK, Research School of Biology Australian National University Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
UR629 Ecologie des Forêts Méditerranéennes (URFM) INRA Avignon 84914 France
Bordeaux Sciences Agro ISPA INRA Villenave d'Ornon 33140 France
The terrestrial carbon and water cycles are intimately linked: the carbon cycle is driven by photosynthesis, while the water balance is dominated by transpiration, and both fluxes are controlled by plant stomatal conductance. The ratio between these fluxes, the plant water‐use efficiency (WUE), is a useful indicator of vegetation function.
WUE can be estimated using several techniques, including leaf gas exchange, stable isotope discrimination, and eddy covariance. Here we compare global compilations of data for each of these three techniques.
We show that patterns of variation in WUE across plant functional types (PFTs) are not consistent among the three datasets. Key discrepancies include the following: leaf‐scale data indicate differences between needleleaf and broadleaf forests, but ecosystem‐scale data do not; leaf‐scale data indicate differences between C 3 and C 4 species, whereas at ecosystem scale there is a difference between C 3 and C 4 crops but not grasslands; and isotope‐based estimates of WUE are higher than estimates based on gas exchange for most PFTs.
Our study quantifies the uncertainty associated with different methods of measuring WUE, indicates potential for bias when using WUE measures to parameterize or validate models, and indicates key research directions needed to reconcile alternative measures of WUE.
Medlyn, Belinda E., et al. "How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water‐use efficiency compare?." New Phytologist, vol. 216, no. 3, Jun. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14626
Medlyn, Belinda E., De Kauwe, Martin G., Lin, Yan‐Shih, Knauer, Jürgen, Duursma, Remko A., Williams, Christopher A., Arneth, Almut, Clement, Rob, Isaac, Peter, Limousin, Jean‐Marc, Linderson, Maj‐Lena, Meir, Patrick, Martin‐StPaul, Nicolas, & Wingate, Lisa (2017). How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water‐use efficiency compare?. New Phytologist, 216(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14626
Medlyn, Belinda E., De Kauwe, Martin G., Lin, Yan‐Shih, et al., "How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water‐use efficiency compare?," New Phytologist 216, no. 3 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14626
@article{osti_1399625,
author = {Medlyn, Belinda E. and De Kauwe, Martin G. and Lin, Yan‐Shih and Knauer, Jürgen and Duursma, Remko A. and Williams, Christopher A. and Arneth, Almut and Clement, Rob and Isaac, Peter and Limousin, Jean‐Marc and others},
title = {How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water‐use efficiency compare?},
annote = {Summary The terrestrial carbon and water cycles are intimately linked: the carbon cycle is driven by photosynthesis, while the water balance is dominated by transpiration, and both fluxes are controlled by plant stomatal conductance. The ratio between these fluxes, the plant water‐use efficiency (WUE), is a useful indicator of vegetation function. WUE can be estimated using several techniques, including leaf gas exchange, stable isotope discrimination, and eddy covariance. Here we compare global compilations of data for each of these three techniques. We show that patterns of variation in WUE across plant functional types (PFTs) are not consistent among the three datasets. Key discrepancies include the following: leaf‐scale data indicate differences between needleleaf and broadleaf forests, but ecosystem‐scale data do not; leaf‐scale data indicate differences between C 3 and C 4 species, whereas at ecosystem scale there is a difference between C 3 and C 4 crops but not grasslands; and isotope‐based estimates of WUE are higher than estimates based on gas exchange for most PFTs. Our study quantifies the uncertainty associated with different methods of measuring WUE, indicates potential for bias when using WUE measures to parameterize or validate models, and indicates key research directions needed to reconcile alternative measures of WUE. },
doi = {10.1111/nph.14626},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1399625},
journal = {New Phytologist},
issn = {ISSN 0028-646X},
number = {3},
volume = {216},
place = {United Kingdom},
publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
year = {2017},
month = {06}}
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 316, Issue 1537https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1986.0007