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. 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.
    2. repec:asg:wpaper:1015 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Shih-Lun Fang & Ting-Jung Chang & Yuan-Kai Tu & Han-Wei Chen & Min-Hwi Yao & Bo-Jein Kuo, 2022. "Plant-Response-Based Control Strategy for Irrigation and Environmental Controls for Greenhouse Tomato Seedling Cultivation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, April.
    11. N. Elguindi & A. Grundstein & S. Bernardes & U. Turuncoglu & J. Feddema, 2014. "Assessment of CMIP5 global model simulations and climate change projections for the 21 st century using a modified Thornthwaite climate classification," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 523-538, February.
    12. Cruz-Blanco, M. & Lorite, I.J. & Santos, C., 2014. "An innovative remote sensing based reference evapotranspiration method to support irrigation water management under semi-arid conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 135-145.
    13. Martí, Pau & González-Altozano, Pablo & López-Urrea, Ramón & Mancha, Luis A. & Shiri, Jalal, 2015. "Modeling reference evapotranspiration with calculated targets. Assessment and implications," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 81-90.
    14. Osama Mohawesh, 2010. "Spatio-temporal Calibration of Blaney–Criddle Equation in Arid and Semiarid Environment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(10), pages 2187-2201, August.
    15. Martí, Pau & López-Urrea, Ramón & Mancha, Luis A. & González-Altozano, Pablo & Román, Armand, 2024. "Seasonal assessment of the grass reference evapotranspiration estimation from limited inputs using different calibrating time windows and lysimeter benchmarks," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).
    16. Ali-Akbar Sabziparvar & H. Tabari & A. Aeini & M. Ghafouri, 2010. "Evaluation of Class A Pan Coefficient Models for Estimation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration in Cold Semi-Arid and Warm Arid Climates," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(5), pages 909-920, March.
    17. Uma S. Bhatt & Rick T. Lader & John E. Walsh & Peter A. Bieniek & Richard Thoman & Matthew Berman & Cecilia Borries-Strigle & Kristi Bulock & Jonathan Chriest & Micah Hahn & Amy S. Hendricks & Randi J, 2021. "Emerging Anthropogenic Influences on the Southcentral Alaska Temperature and Precipitation Extremes and Related Fires in 2019," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Choudhury, B.U. & Singh, Anil Kumar, 2016. "Estimation of crop coefficient of irrigated transplanted puddled rice by field scale water balance in the semi-arid Indo-Gangetic Plains, India," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 142-150.
    19. Laishram Kanta Singh & Madan K. Jha & Mohita Pandey, 2018. "Framework for Standardizing Less Data-Intensive Methods of Reference Evapotranspiration Estimation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(13), pages 4159-4175, October.
    20. Erdem Küçüktopcu & Emirhan Cemek & Bilal Cemek & Halis Simsek, 2023. "Hybrid Statistical and Machine Learning Methods for Daily Evapotranspiration Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, March.

    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.