4.8 Article

Hydrological effects of forest transpiration loss in bark beetle-impacted watersheds

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 481-486

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2198

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [WSC-1204787]
  2. USGS-National Institute of Water Resources [2011CO245G, G-2914-1]
  3. Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets program
  4. USGS/NPS Partnership program
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [1204787] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent climate-exacerbated mountain pine beetle infestation in the Rocky Mountains of North America has resulted in tree death that is unprecedented in recorded history. The spatial and temporal heterogeneity inherent in insect infestation creates a complex and often unpredictable watershed response, influencing the primary storage and flow components of the hydrologic cycle. Despite the increased vulnerability of forested ecosystems under changing climate(1), watershed-scale implications of interception, ground evaporation, and transpiration changes remain relatively unknown, with conflicting reports of streamflow perturbations across regions. Here, contributions to streamflow are analysed through time and space to investigate the potential for increased groundwater inputs resulting from hydrologic change after infestation. Results demonstrate that fractional late-summer groundwater contributions from impacted watersheds are 30 +/- 15% greater after infestation and when compared with a neighbouring watershed that experienced earlier and less-severe attack, albeit uncertainty propagations through time and space are considerable. Water budget analysis confirms that transpiration loss resulting from beetle kill can account for the relative increase in groundwater contributions to streams, often considered the sustainable flow fraction and critical to mountain water supplies and ecosystems.

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

4.8
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