, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1311–1323 | Cite as

The Sensitivity of Evapotranspiration to Inter-Specific Plant Neighbor Interactions: Implications for Models

  • Heather Kropp
  • Kiona Ogle
  • Enrique R. Vivoni
  • Kevin R. Hultine


Evapotranspiration (ET) is an important water loss flux in ecosystem water cycles, and quantifying the spatial and temporal variation of ET can improve ecohydrological models in arid ecosystems. Plant neighbor interactions may be a source of spatial and temporal variation in ET due to their effects on the above- and belowground microclimate and increased water demand for transpiration. Over longer timescales (annual to multiple years), adjustments in plant physiological traits may occur in response to neighbor environments, potentially affecting the transpiration (T) component of ET. We used a dynamic soil water model to assess the sensitivity of ET and T estimates to neighbor effects on soil moisture via competition for water, aboveground microclimate effects via canopy shading, and physiological adjustments (specifically, root distribution, stomatal behavior, and canopy leaf area). We focus on a common desert shrub (Larrea tridentata) under different inter-specific neighbor environments and precipitation regimes. Neighbors impacted T of Larrea by as much as 75% at the patch scale (plant and surrounding soil) and 30% at the stand scale. Annual T estimates were highly sensitive to changes in soil moisture associated with competition for water, and the inclusion of physiological adjustments to neighbor environments significantly impacted seasonal T. Plant neighbor interactions can significantly influence ET and soil moisture, and their inclusion in models can help explain spatial and temporal variation in water fluxes in arid ecosystems. Furthermore, physiological adjustments to neighbor environments may be an important source of variation to include in models that operate over seasonal timescales or in studies focused on plant responses to precipitation under climate change.


aridity competition evapotranspiration facilitation plant–plant interactions soil water model 



This project was supported through funding provided to KO from the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University. We thank Erick Pierson for his assistance with writing code for the automation of HYDRUS1D runs. We thank Michael Fell, Jessica Guo, and Drew Peltier for helpful feedback.

Supplementary material

10021_2017_112_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (170 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 170 kb)
10021_2017_112_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (79 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 78 kb)
10021_2017_112_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (449 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 448 kb)
10021_2017_112_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 6 kb)


  1. Barbour M. 1969. Age and space distribution of the desert shrub Larrea Div Aricata. Ecology 50:679–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briones O, Montana C, Ezcurra E. 1996. Competition between three Chihuahuan desert species: evidence from plant size-distance relations and root distribution. J Veg Sci 7:453–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brisson J, Reynolds JF. 1994. The effect of neighbors on root distribution in a creosotebush (Larrea Tridentata) population. Ecology 75:1693–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell MM, Dawson TE, Richards JH. 1998. Hydraulic lift: consequences of water efflux from the roots of plants. Oecologia 113:151–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway RM, Pennings SC, Richards CL. 2003. Phenotypic plasticity and interactions among plants. Ecology 84:1115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Walker LR. 1997. Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P, Gebauer RLE, Schwinning S, Huntly N, Wiegand K, Ernest MSK, Sher A, Novoplansky A, Weltzin JF. 2004. Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141:236–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. FCDMC. 2015. Rainfall information. Flood control district of Maricopa county, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer RA, Turner NC. 1978. Plant productivity in the arid and semiarid zones. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 29:277–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall SJ, Sponseller RA, Grimm NB, Huber D, Kaye JP, Clark C, Collins SL. 2011. Ecosystem response to nutrient enrichment across an urban airshed in the Sonoran Desert. Ecol Appl 21:640–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hargreaves GH, Asce F, Allen RG. 2003. History and evaluation of Hargreaves evapotranspiration equation. J Irrig Drain Eng 129:53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins GA, Vivoni ER, Robles-Morua A, Mascaro G, Rivera E, Dominguez F. 2015. A climate change projection for summer hydrologic conditions in a semiarid watershed of central Arizona. J Arid Environ 118:9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ivanov VY, Bras RL, Vivoni ER. 2008. Vegetation-hydrology dynamics in complex terrain of semiarid areas: 1. A mechanistic approach to modeling dynamic feedbacks. Water Resour Res 44:W03429.Google Scholar
  14. Kemp P, Reynolds J. 1997. A comparative modeling study of soil water dynamics in a desert ecosystem. Water Resour Res 33:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kropp H, Ogle K. 2015. Seasonal stomatal behavior of a common desert shrub and the influence of plant neighbors. Oecologia 177:345–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kropp H, Ogle K, Wojciechowski MF. 2016. A framework for partitioning plant rooting profiles from neighbors using multiple data types. J Veg Sci . doi: 10.1111/jvs.12377.Google Scholar
  17. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter DA, Best TN. 2009. The BUGS project: evolution, critique, and future direcctions (with discussion). Stat Med 28:3049–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ogle K, Reynolds JF. 2002. Desert dogma revisited: coupling of stomatal conductance and photosynthesis in the desert shrub, Larrea tridentata. Plant Cell Environ 25:909–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ogle K, Reynolds JF. 2004. Plant responses to precipitation in desert ecosystems: integrating functional types, pulses, thresholds, and delays. Oecologia 141:282–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ogle K, Wolpert RL, Reynolds JF. 2004. Reconstructing plant root area and water uptake profiles. Ecology 85:1967–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG, Pataki DE, Ewers BE, Phillips N, Schäfer KVR. 1999. Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22:1515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pockman WT, Sperry JS. 2000. Vunerability to xylem cavitation and the distribution of Sonoran Desert vegetation. Am J Bot 87:1287–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Raz-Yaseef N, Rotenberg E, Yakir D. 2010. Effects of spatial variations in soil evaporation caused by tree shading on water flux partitioning in a semi-arid pine forest. Agric For Meteorol 150:454–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reynolds JF, Virginia RA, Kemp PR, Soyza AG, Tremmel DC. 1999. Impact of drought on desert shrubs: effects of seasonality and degree of resource island development. Ecol Monogr 69:69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reynolds JF, Kemp PR, Tenhunen JD. 2000. Effects of long-term rainfall variability on evapotranspiration and soil water distribution in the Chihuahuan Desert: a modeling analysis. Plant Ecol 150:145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richards LA. 1931. Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums. J Appl Phys 1:318–33.Google Scholar
  27. Roberts J. 2000. The influence of physical and physiological characteristics of vegetation on their hydrological response. Hydrol Process 14:2885–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Porporato A, Laio F, Ridolfi L. 2001. Plants in water-controlled ecosystems: active role in hydrologic processes and response to water stress I. Scope and general outline. Adv Water Resour 24:695–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schenk HJ, Jackson B. 2002. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads, and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited. J Ecol 90:480–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scott RL, Huxman TE, Cable WL, Emmerich WE. 2006. Partitioning of evapotranspiration and its relation to carbon dioxide exchange in a Chihuahuan Desert shrubland. Hydrol Process 20:3227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seyfried MS, Schwinning S, Walvoord MA, Pockman WT, Newman BD, Jackson RB, Phillips FM. 2005. Ecohydrological control of deep drainage in arid and semiarid regions. Ecology 86:277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Šimůnek J, van Genuchten MT, Šejna M. 2008. Development and applications of the HYDRUS and STANMOD software packages and related codes. Vadose Zone J 7:587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Šimůnek J, van Genuchten MT, Šejna M. 2013. The Hydrus-1D software package for simulating the movement of water, heat, and multiple solutes in variably saturated media v 4.17.Google Scholar
  34. Spiegelhalter DA, Best TN, Lunn D. 2003. WinBugs version 3.03 user manual. Cambridge, U.K. Medical Research Council Biostatistics.Google Scholar
  35. Suzan H, Nabhan GP, Patten DT. 1996. The importance of Olenya tesota as a nurse plant in the Sonoran Desert. J Veg Sci 7:635–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suzán-Azpiri H, Sosa VJ. 2006. Comparative performance of the giant cardon cactus (Pachycereus pringlei) seedlings under two leguminous nurse plant species. J Arid Environ 65:351–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Synodinos AD, Tietjen B, Jeltsch F. 2015. Facilitation in drylands: Modeling a neglected driver of savanna dynamics. Ecol Model 304:11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szarek SR. 1977. Ecophysiological studies of Sonoran Desert plants II. Seasonal photosynthesis patterns and primary production of Ambrosia deltoidea and Olneya tesota. Oecologia 28:365–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tewksbury JJ, Nabhan GP, Norman D, Suzán H, Tuxill J, Donovan JIM. 1999. In situ conservation of Wild Chiles and their biotic associates. Conserv Biol 13:98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tietjen B, Zehe E, Jeltsch F. 2009. Simulating plant water availability in dry lands under climate change: a generic model of two soil layers. Water Resour Res 45:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Genuchten MT. 1980. A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Genuchten MT. 1987. A numerical model for water and solute movement in and below the root zone. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Riverside, California.Google Scholar
  43. Violle C, Garnier E, Lecoeur J, Roumet C, Podeur C, Blanchard A, Navas M-L. 2009. Competition, traits and resource depletion in plant communities. Oecologia 160:747–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vivoni ER. 2012a. Diagnosing seasonal vegetation impacts on evapotranspiration and its partitioning at the catchment scale during SMEX04–NAME. J Hydrometeorol 13:1631–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vivoni ER. 2012b. Spatial patterns, processes and predictions in ecohydrology: integrating technologies to meet the challenge. Ecohydrology 5:235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2015. Western US climate historical summaries. Fountain Hills, AZ (023190). (
  47. Zou CB, Barnes PW, Archer S, McMurtry CR. 2005. Soil moisture redistribution as a mechanism of facilitation in savanna tree-shrub clusters. Oecologia 145:32–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Kropp
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kiona Ogle
    • 3
  • Enrique R. Vivoni
    • 4
  • Kevin R. Hultine
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyColgate UniversityHamiltonUSA
  3. 3.Informatics and Computing ProgramNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.School of Earth and Space Exploration and School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built EnvironmentArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  5. 5.Department of Research, Conservation and CollectionsDesert Botanical GardenPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations