Climatic Change

, Volume 93, Issue 1–2, pp 137–155

Modeling the eco-hydrologic response of a Mediterranean type ecosystem to the combined impacts of projected climate change and altered fire frequencies



Global Climate Models (GCMs) project moderate warming along with increases in atmospheric CO2 for California Mediterranean type ecosystems (MTEs). In water-limited ecosystems, vegetation acts as an important control on streamflow and responds to soil moisture availability. Fires are also key disturbances in semi-arid environments, and few studies have explored the potential interactions among changes in climate, vegetation dynamics, hydrology, elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and fire. We model ecosystem productivity, evapotranspiration, and summer streamflow under a range of temperature and precipitation scenarios using RHESSys, a spatially distributed model of carbon–water interactions. We examine the direct impacts of temperature and precipitation on vegetation productivity and impacts associated with higher water-use efficiency under elevated atmospheric CO2. Results suggest that for most climate scenarios, biomass in chaparral-dominated systems is likely to increase, leading to reductions in summer streamflow. However, within the range of GCM predictions, there are some scenarios in which vegetation may decrease, leading to higher summer streamflows. Changes due to increases in fire frequency will also impact summer streamflow but these will be small relative to changes due to vegetation productivity. Results suggest that monitoring vegetation responses to a changing climate should be a focus of climate change assessment for California MTEs.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antle J, Apps M, Beamish R (2001) Ecosystems and their goods and services. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 235–342Google Scholar
  2. Beven K, Freer J (2001) Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modeling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J Hydrol 249:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breshears DD, Allen CD (2002) The importance of rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management and sequestration. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cayan D, Maurer E, Dettinger M, Tyree M, Hayhoe K, Bonfils C, Duffy P, Santer B (2006) Climate scenarios for California, white paper, California climate change center, CEC-500–2006–203-SFGoogle Scholar
  5. DeBano LF (2000) The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a review. J Hydrol 231–232:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Meyer M, Jeton AE (2004) Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900–2099. Clim Change 62:283–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan and Cachuma Project Biological Opinion for Southern Steelhead Trout (2004) Prepared by Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, Santa Barbara County, California and Depart of the Interior Bureau of ReclamationGoogle Scholar
  8. Farquhar G, vonCaemmerer S (1982) Modeling photosynthetic response to environmental conditions. Encyclopedia of Plant PhysiologyGoogle Scholar
  9. Florsheim JL, Keller EA, Best DW (1991) Fluvial sediment transport in response to moderate storm flows following chaparral wildfire, Ventura County, southern California. Geol Soc Amer Bull 103:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghan SJ, Shippert T, Fox J (2006) Physically based global downscaling: regional evaluation. J Climate 19:429–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodrich DC, Chehbouni A, Goff B, MacNish B, Maddock T, Moran S et al (2000) Preface paper to the Semi-Arid Land-Surface-Atmosphere (SALSA) program special issue. Agric For Meteorol 105:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haidinger TL, Keeley JE (1993) Role of high fire frequency in destruction of mixed chaparral. Madroño 40:141–147Google Scholar
  13. Hayhoe K, Cayan D, Field C, Frumhoff P, Maurer E, Miller N, Moser S, Schneider S, Cahill K, Cleland E, Dale L, Drapek R, Hanemann RM, Kalkstein L, Lenihan J, Lunch C, Neilson R, Sheridan S, Verville J (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 101(34):12422–12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2005) Sources of variability of ET in California. J Hydrometeorol 6(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hubbert KR, Oriol V (2005) Temporal fluctuations in soil water repellency following wildfire in chaparral steeplands, southern California. Int J Wildland Fire 14:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jarvis PG (1976) The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 273:593–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeley JE, Fotheringham CJ, Morias M (1999) Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science 284(5421):1829–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knowles N, Cayan D (2002) Potential effects of global warming on the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco estuary. Geophys Res Lett 29:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenihan JM, Drapek R, Bachelet D, Neilson RP (2003) Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in Califronia. Ecol Appl 13(6):1667–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loaiciga HA, Pedreros D, Roberts D (2001) Wildfire-streamflow interactions in a chaparral watershed. Adv Environ Res 5:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McMichael CE, Hope AS, Roberts DA, Anaya M (2004) Post-fire recovery of leaf area index in California chaparral: a remote sensing—chronosequence approach. Int J Remote Sens 25(21):4743–4760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Medlyn BE, Barton CVM, Broadmeadow MSJ, Ceulemans R, De Angelis P, Forstreuter M, Freeman M, Jackson SB, Kellomaki S, Laitat E, Ray A, Roberntz P, Sigurdsson BD, Strassemeyer J, Wang K, Curtis PS, Jarvis PG (2001) Stomatal conductance of forest species after long-term exposure to elevated CO2 concentration: a synthesis. New Phytol 149:247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mensing SA, Michaelsen J, Byrne R (1999) A 560-year record of Santa Ana fires reconstructed from charcoal deposited in the Santa Ana Basin, California. Quat Res 51:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreno JM, Oechel WC (1995) Global change and Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Nash J, Sutcliffe J (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: Part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oechel WC, Hastings SJ, Vourlitis GL, Jenkins MA, Hinkson CL (1995) Direct effects of elevated CO2 in Chaparral and Mediterranean-type ecosystem. In: Moreno J, Oechel W (eds) Global change and Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer, New York, pp 58–75Google Scholar
  27. Penuelas J, Prieto P, Beier C, Cesaraccio C, de Angelis P, de Dato G, Emmett BA, Estiarte M, Garadnai J, Gorissen A, Lang EK, Kroel-Dulay G, Llorens L, Pellizzaro G, Riis-Nielsen T, Schmidt IK, Sirca C, Sowerby A, Spano D, Tietema A (2007) Response of plant species richness and primary productivity in shrublands along a north-south gradient in Europe to seven years of experimental warming and drought: reductions in primary productivity in the heat and drought year of 2003. Glob Chang Biol 12(12):2563–2581. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01464.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Radtke KW-H, Arndt AM, Wakimoto R (1982) Fire history of the Santa Monica Mountains. General Technical Report PSW-58: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, CA, pp 438–443Google Scholar
  30. Schimel DS, Melillo J, Tian H, McGuire AD, Kicklighter D, Kittel T, Rosenbloom N, Running S, Thornton P, Ojima D, Parton W, Kelly R, Sykes M, Neilson R, Rizzo B (2000) Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science 287:2004–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seaby LP, Tague CL, Hope A (2006) Post-fire recovery of eco-hydrologic behavior given historic and projected climate variability in California Mediterranean type environments. Eos Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 87(52) Fall Meeting. Suppl. Abstract H13B–1938Google Scholar
  32. Stephenson JR, Calcarone GM (1999) Southern California Mountains and Foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report: PSW-GTR-172, Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 402 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Tague C, Band LE (2004) RHESSys: Regional Hydro-Ecologic Simulation System—an object-oriented approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water, and nutrient cycling. Earth Interact 8(19):1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tague C, McMichael C, Hope A, Choate J, Clark R (2004) Application of the RHESSys model to a California semi-arid shrubland watershed. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40(3):575–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thornton PE, Law BE, Gholz HL, Clark KL, Falge E, Ellsworth DS, Goldstein AH, Monson RK, Hollinger D, Falk M, Chen J, Sparks JP (2002) Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests. Agric For Meteorol 113:185–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vicuna S, Maurer E, Yoyce B, Dracup J, Purkey D (2007) The sensitivity of California water resources to climate change scenarios1. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(2):482–498. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00038.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Westerling AL, Gershunov A, Brown TJ, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2003) Climate and wildfire in the Western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 84(5):595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wigmosta M, Lettenmaier D (1999) A comparison of simplified methods for routing topographically driven subsurface flow. Water Resour Res 35(1):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilkinson R (2002) The potential consequences of climate variability and change for California: a report of the California Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, September pp 1–432Google Scholar
  40. Wood AW, Leung LR, Sridhar V, Lettenmaier P (2004) Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical climate model outputs. Clim Change 62:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Sher LeffSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations