Abstract
Abstract. Current techniques to disentangle the total evaporative flux from the continental surface into a contribution evaporated from soils and canopy, or transpired by plants are under debate. Many isotope-based studies show that transpiration contributes generally more than 70% to the total moisture fluxes, while other isotope-independent techniques lead to considerably smaller transpiration fractions. This paper provides a perspective on isotope-based vs. non isotope-based partitioning studies. Some partitioning results from isotope-based methods, hydrometric measurements, and modeling are presented for comparison. Moreover, the methodological aspects of the analysis of partitioning are discussed including their limitations, and explanations of possible discrepancies between the methods are briefly discussed. We conclude that every method has its own uncertainties and these may lead to a high bias in the results, e.g. instruments inaccuracy and error, some assumptions used in analyses, parameters calibration. A number of comparison studies using isotope-based methods and hydrometric measurements in the same plants and climatic conditions are consistent within the errors, however, models tend to produce lower transpiration fractions. The relatively low transpiration fractions in current state of the art land surface models calls for a reassessment of the skill of the underlying model parameterizations. The scarcity of global evaporation data makes calibration and validation of global isotope-independent and isotope-based results difficult. However, isotope enabled land-surface and global climate modeling studies allow the evaluation of the parameterization of land surface models by comparing the computed water isotopologue signals in the atmosphere with the available remote sensing and flux-based data sets. Future studies that allow this evaluation could provide a better understanding of the hydrological cycle in vegetated regions.
Reference78 articles.
1. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56 FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998.
2. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Howell, T. A., and Jensen, M. E.: Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy, Agr. Water Manage., 98, 899–920, 2011.
3. Barnes, C. J. and Allison, G. B.: The distribution of deuterium and 18O in dry soils, 1. Theory, J. Hydrol., 60, 141–156, 1983.
4. Billesbach, D. P.: Estimating uncertainty in individual eddy covariance flux measurements: a comparison of methods and a proposed new method, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 151, 394–405, 2011.
5. Blyth, E. M. and Harding, R. J.: Methods to separate observed global evapotranspiration into the interception, transpiration and soil surface evaporation components, Hydrol. Process., 25, 4063–4068, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8409, 2011.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献