Top Banner
Comparison of water flux rom Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer, Mike Ryan, Eric Watrud, Nate Gehres,
32

Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Dec 14, 2015

Download

Documents

Clifton Harrell
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Comparison of water fluxfrom Douglas-fir and Oregon

white oak of varying age and stature

Nathan Phillips, Barbara BondNate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Mike Ryan, Eric Watrud, Nate Gehres,

Page 2: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Temperate conifer Dry angiosperm Tropical angiosperm

Page 3: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Landsat TM, Wind River Canopy Crane Research Facility

Page 4: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Betts et al. 1997, Nature

Page 5: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Field et al. 1999

Page 6: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Yoder et al. 1994

Page 7: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

XX

X

Page 8: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Mountain Ash Forest, AustraliaA

nn

ual

Wat

er F

lux

(cm

)

0

30

60

90

120

0 50 100 150 2000

30

60

90

120

Forest Age (y)

Stream flow

Evapo-transpiration

Watson et al. 1999

Page 9: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Objectives•Determine whether tall trees show reduced transpiration compared to smaller trees

•Scale whole-tree water use estimates to the ecosystem and compare age classes

•Compare transpiration estimates to ecosystem latent heat fluxes estimated using eddy covariance (Doug-fir only) [thanks KT Paw U, Jiquan Chen, Mattias Falk, Tom King]

Page 10: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Suite of tests:

Parameter Predicted change w/ size

sap flow decrease

stomatal conductance decrease

latent heat flux decrease (?)

Page 11: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Methods

•sap flux measurements: constant thermal dissipation technique (Granier-Type).

•Sampling: 6-9 trees in 20, 40, and 500 y old doug-fir stands; 8 trees each in old/young oak

•Sub-sampling: 2-5 points within trees •Study period: 1998,99 summer months for Doug-fir; 1999 summer for oak

•eddy covariance: 20 and 500 y old Doug-fir stands

Page 12: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Douglas-fir Study Area

Southern Washington

•Douglas fir dominated•3 age class sites within 10 km •2.5 m annual precipitation•9 oC mean annual temperature•350 - 500 m elevation

500 y, 65 m tall 40 y, 35 m tall 20 y, 15 m tall

Page 13: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Wind River, WA

180 210 240 270

Vo

l. s

oil

mo

istu

re (

m3 m

-3)

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Day of year

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45 20 y40 y500 y

1998

1999

Page 14: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Wind River, WA

180 210 240 270

0

1

2

3

420 y40 y500 y

Tra

ns

pir

ati

on

(m

m d

-1)

0

1

2

3

4

1998

1999

Page 15: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Wind River, WA 1998-1999

500 y transpiration (mm d-1)0 1 2 3 4

20

y t

ran

sp

ira

tio

n

(

mm

d-1

)

0

1

2

3

4Y = 0.3 + 2.1Xr2 = 0.61

Page 16: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Sa

pfl

ow

(mm

h-1

)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3 20 y500 y

VP

D (

kP

a)

0

1

2

3

4

P

AR

(mm

ol

m-2

s-1

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0 PAR20 y VPD500 y VPD

August 2 (moist soil) Sept. 14 (dry soil)

Time (h)6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24

Wind River, WA 1998

Phillips et al., AGU 1999

Page 17: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Wind River, WA July 27-29, 1999

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.620 y40 y500 y

(mm

h-1

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 12 24 36 48 60 720.0

0.2

0.420 y500 y

Eddy covariance ecosystem flux

Sapflow per ground area

Sapflow per leaf area

(mm

ol

m-2

s-1

)

Time (h)

Page 18: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Wind River, WA July 27-29, 1999

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

20

y E

dd

y C

ov

. (m

m h

-1)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Y= 0.01 + 0.65Xr2 = 0.86

500 y sapflow (mm h-1) 500 y Eddy Cov. (mm h-1)0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

20

y S

apfl

ow

(m

m h

-1)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Y= -0.02 + 3.4Xr2 = 0.96

Page 19: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Wind River, WA 1999

Aug 2 Sept 14(moist soil) (dry soil)

GC

,D (

mm

s-1

)

0

2

420 y500 y

Page 20: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Oregon white oak

Page 21: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

-600

-400

-200

0

TD

R n

3.5

4.0

4.5YoungOLD

A,B: Corvallis met data - Hyslop Experimental Station, Oregon Climate Service

Day of year (May 1, 1999 - Oct 15, 1999)

Rai

n, E

vap

ora

tio

n (

mm

)

02468

1012

Cumulative Evaporation - Rain

Rain EvaporationA.

B.TDR

Page 22: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Quercus garryana 1999, Corvallis OR

LA

I (m

2 m-2

)0

1

2

3

4p = 0.48 n = 25 traps n = 14 traps

25 m 10 m

LA

/SW

A (

m2 c

m-2

)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4p < 0.00001 (assuming no error in SWA)

SW

A (

m2 h

a-1)

0

5

10

Page 23: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Sa

p F

lux

(g

m-2

s-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

E (

mm

h-1

)

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

OldYoung

May 22 - 28 June 19-23 Sept 28 - Oct 4

Time (d)

Quercus garryana Corvallis, OR , 1999

Page 24: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Quercus garryana Corvallis, ORMay 22 - Oct 4, 1998

Young E (mm h-1)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

Old

E (

mm

h-1

)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Old = 0.001 + 0.40 Youngr2 = 0.95

Page 25: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Quercus garryana Corvallis, OR 1999

25 m 10 m

Tra

nsp

irat

ion

(m

m d

-1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Page 26: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Future Directions

Page 27: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

3PG Model Structure

Page 28: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Bogh et al. 1999 Remote Sens. Environ.

Page 29: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

2 cm

Page 30: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Phillips et al. (NSF in review) adapted from Liu 1985

Page 31: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,
Page 32: Comparison of water flux from Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak of varying age and stature Nathan Phillips, Barbara Bond Nate McDowell, Andrew Schauer,

Nate M.

Nate G.

Heather M, Megan V.H.

Hyun K.

Eric W.

Acknowledgements

Andy S.

Seth M.