IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v414y2019ics0304380019303448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Various measures of potential evapotranspiration have species-specific impact on species distribution models

Author

Listed:
  • Adhikari, Arjun
  • Mainali, Kumar P.
  • Rangwala, Imtiaz
  • Hansen, Andrew J.

Abstract

The growth and distribution of plant species in water limited environments is often limited by the atmospheric evaporative demands which is measured in terms of potential evapotranspiration (PET). While PET estimated by different methods have been widely used to assess vegetation response to climate change, species distribution models offer unique opportunity to compare their efficiency in predicting habitat suitability of plant species. In this study, we perform the first multi-species comparison of two widely used metrics of PET i.e., Penman-Monteith and Thornthwaite, and show how they result in similar or different on projected distribution of water limited species and potential consequences on their conservation strategies across North Central U.S. To build species distribution models of eight species, we used two sets of environmental predictors which were identical except for the metric of PET (Penman-Monteith vs Thornthwaite) and projected habitat suitability for historical (2005) and future (2099) periods. We found an excellent model performance with no difference under two sets of predictors (AUC = ∼0.93). The relative influence of Thornthwaite PET on habitat prediction was higher than Penman PET for most of the species. We observed that the area of the projected suitable habitat was always higher under Thornthwaite set of predictors than Penman set of predictors (ranges from 25 % to 941 %), with the exception of Pinus contorta for which the reverse was true. In most cases, these differences were non-trivial, indicating that the choice of the PET metric, although both of them are commonly used, can have dramatic consequences on the conservation management decisions. Therefore, the conservation management decisions can be markedly different depending on the choice of the PET metric used for species distribution modeling of water limited species.

Suggested Citation

  • Adhikari, Arjun & Mainali, Kumar P. & Rangwala, Imtiaz & Hansen, Andrew J., 2019. "Various measures of potential evapotranspiration have species-specific impact on species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 414(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:414:y:2019:i:c:s0304380019303448
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380019303448
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108836?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:asg:wpaper:1015 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lopez-Urrea, R. & Martin de Santa Olalla, F. & Fabeiro, C. & Moratalla, A., 2006. "Testing evapotranspiration equations using lysimeter observations in a semiarid climate," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(1-2), pages 15-26, September.
    3. Stephanie McAfee, 2013. "Methodological differences in projected potential evapotranspiration," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 915-930, October.
    4. Arjun Adhikari & Andrew J. Hansen, 2019. "Climate and water balance change among public, private, and tribal lands within Greater Wild land Ecosystems across North Central USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 551-567, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Escarabajal-Henarejos, D. & Fernández-Pacheco, D.G. & Molina-Martínez, J.M. & Martínez-Molina, L. & Ruiz-Canales, A., 2015. "Selection of device to determine temperature gradients for estimating evapotranspiration using energy balance method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 136-147.
    2. Prem B. Parajuli & Priyantha Jayakody & Ying Ouyang, 2018. "Evaluation of Using Remote Sensing Evapotranspiration Data in SWAT," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(3), pages 985-996, February.
    3. Dzikiti, S. & Lotter, D. & Mpandeli, S. & Nhamo, L., 2022. "Assessing the energy and water balance dynamics of rain-fed rooibos tea crops (Aspalathus linearis) under changing Mediterranean climatic conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    4. Ruperto Ortiz-Gómez & Roberto S. Flowers-Cano & Guillermo Medina-García, 2022. "Sensitivity of the RDI and SPEI Drought Indices to Different Models for Estimating Evapotranspiration Potential in Semiarid Regions," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(7), pages 2471-2492, May.
    5. Sentelhas, Paulo C. & Gillespie, Terry J. & Santos, Eduardo A., 2010. "Evaluation of FAO Penman-Monteith and alternative methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration with missing data in Southern Ontario, Canada," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(5), pages 635-644, May.
    6. López-Urrea, R. & Domínguez, A. & Pardo, J.J. & Montoya, F. & García-Vila, M. & Martínez-Romero, A., 2020. "Parameterization and comparison of the AquaCrop and MOPECO models for a high-yielding barley cultivar under different irrigation levels," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    7. Ohana-Levi, Noa & Munitz, Sarel & Ben-Gal, Alon & Netzer, Yishai, 2020. "Evaluation of within-season grapevine evapotranspiration patterns and drivers using generalized additive models," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Pereira, L.S. & Paredes, P. & Hunsaker, D.J. & López-Urrea, R. & Mohammadi Shad, Z., 2021. "Standard single and basal crop coefficients for field crops. Updates and advances to the FAO56 crop water requirements method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    9. Alvarez, V. Martinez & Gonzalez-Real, M.M. & Baille, A. & Martinez, J.M. Molina, 2007. "A novel approach for estimating the pan coefficient of irrigation water reservoirs: Application to South Eastern Spain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 29-40, August.
    10. Hassan Afzaal & Aitazaz A. Farooque & Farhat Abbas & Bishnu Acharya & Travis Esau, 2020. "Precision Irrigation Strategies for Sustainable Water Budgeting of Potato Crop in Prince Edward Island," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    11. Sánchez, J.M. & López-Urrea, R. & Rubio, E. & González-Piqueras, J. & Caselles, V., 2014. "Assessing crop coefficients of sunflower and canola using two-source energy balance and thermal radiometry," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 23-29.
    12. Montoro, A. & Mañas, F. & López-Urrea, R., 2016. "Transpiration and evaporation of grapevine, two components related to irrigation strategy," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 193-200.
    13. Manuel Soler-Méndez & Dolores Parras-Burgos & Estefanía Mas-Espinosa & Antonio Ruíz-Canales & Diego S. Intrigliolo & José Miguel Molina-Martínez, 2021. "Standardization of the Dimensions of a Portable Weighing Lysimeter Designed to Be Applied to Vegetable Crops in Mediterranean Climates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Vishwakarma, Dinesh Kumar & Pandey, Kusum & Kaur, Arshdeep & Kushwaha, N.L. & Kumar, Rohitashw & Ali, Rawshan & Elbeltagi, Ahmed & Kuriqi, Alban, 2022. "Methods to estimate evapotranspiration in humid and subtropical climate conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    15. Xiang, Keyu & Li, Yi & Horton, Robert & Feng, Hao, 2020. "Similarity and difference of potential evapotranspiration and reference crop evapotranspiration – a review," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    16. Chatzithomas, C.D. & Alexandris, S.G., 2015. "Solar radiation and relative humidity based, empirical method, to estimate hourly reference evapotranspiration," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 188-197.
    17. David Martínez-Granados & José Maestre-Valero & Javier Calatrava & Victoriano Martínez-Alvarez, 2011. "The Economic Impact of Water Evaporation Losses from Water Reservoirs in the Segura Basin, SE Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(13), pages 3153-3175, October.
    18. Hossein Tabari, 2010. "Evaluation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration Equations in Various Climates," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(10), pages 2311-2337, August.
    19. López-Urrea, R. & Montoro, A. & González-Piqueras, J. & López-Fuster, P. & Fereres, E., 2009. "Water use of spring wheat to raise water productivity," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 1305-1310, September.
    20. Ohana-Levi, Noa & Ben-Gal, Alon & Munitz, Sarel & Netzer, Yishai, 2022. "Grapevine crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficient forecasting using linear and non-linear multiple regression models," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:414:y:2019:i:c:s0304380019303448. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.