4.4 Article

Soil properties affect pinyon pine - juniper response to drought

期刊

ECOHYDROLOGY
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 455-463

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/eco.1284

关键词

remote sensing; precipitation; water balance; bark beetles; soil properties; process-based model

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX11A029G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the late 1990s, drought-driven dieback has affected more than a million hectares of pinyon pine-juniper woodlands in the southwestern USA. Analysis of annual aerial surveys by the US Forest Service and soil survey data shows that most of the mortality occurred between 2003 and 2004 and that 70% was restricted to soils mapped as having available water storage capacities (Ac) <100mm. We conducted a more refined analysis and found that as Ac increased in increments of 50mm up to 300mm, the distribution of areas with observed mortality decreased exponentially from 42% to 3% (n=6 classes, r2=0.93). We used this information in a process-based stand growth model, physiological principles predicting growth, to assess year to year variation in gross photosynthesis between 1985 and 2005 with climatic data at monthly intervals from four weather stations where pinyon-juniper woodlands were confirmed by satellite imagery. A sensitivity analysis identified sustained periods of drought and supported field observations that once canopy leaf area approaches a maximum value, the majority of mortality should be restricted to soils with Ac values <100mm. Additional analyses indicated that differences in soil texture played a small part (<10%) in the variation of gross photosynthesis and that consecutive years of drought may have a cumulative effect on pinyon pine vulnerability to bark beetle attack. Disturbances reducing canopy leaf area index should result in less pine mortality in the future, although conversion to shrub and grassland may occur if climate conditions continue to become less favorable. Copyright (c) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据