Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 677–687 | Cite as

Microclimate influences on vegetation water availability and net primary production in coastal ecosystems of Central California

  • Christopher Potter
Research Article


Field sampling and satellite remote sensing were used to test the hypothesis that site microclimate variability leading to divergent soil water use by vegetation types is closely associated with variability in annual net primary productivity (NPP) at the landscape scale. A simulation model based on satellite observations of seasonal phenology was used to estimate NPP of grassland, shrubland, and conifer forest vegetation types on the Central California coast near Big Sur. Daily microclimate at the soil surface was monitored over 4 years (2008–2011) for each vegetation type to infer soil moisture controls on plant production. Grassland soils were found to have lower soil organic matter content and were subjected to extreme radiation and wind events, and thereby dry-down faster with daily spring–summer warming than do shrubland or redwood forest soils. This reduced moisture microclimate affected the water stress on grassland plants to reduce NPP fluxes from April to October each year on the Central Coast far sooner than for shrubland or redwood stands. Results from this study suggested that the satellite-observed canopy greenness variations represented can be used to quantify plant production in coastal ecosystems at the landscape scale of defined microclimate variation.


Plant production Soil moisture Remote sensing MODIS Big Sur Central California Coast 



This work was supported by grants from NASA Ames Research. The author acknowledges assistance from the US Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest (Ecosystem Manager Jeff Kwasny) for access to the Brazil Ranch property. The author thanks Shuang Li for assistance with the CASA Express model runs, and acknowledges assistance in field sample collections from Cyrus Hiatt, Lisa Mammel, Cole Potter, Enza Potter, and Stephen Rosenfield. CASA model data sets are available online at, as part of the NASA Carbon Query and Evaluation Support Tools (CQUEST) project.


  1. Abatzoglou JT, Redmond KT, Edwards LM (2009) Classification of regional climate variability in the state of California. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:1527–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amthor JS, Chen JM, Clein JS, Frolking SE, Goulden ML, Grant RF, Kimball JS, King AW, McGuire AD, Nikolov NT, Potter CS, Wang S, Wofsy SC (2001) Boreal forest CO2 exchange and evapotranspiration predicted by nine ecosystem process models: Inter-model comparisons and relations to field measurements. J Geophys Res 106:33,623–633,648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldocchi DD, Xu LK, Kiang N (2004) How plant functional-type, weather, seasonal drought, and soil physical properties alter Water and energy fluxes of an oak-savanna and an annual grassland. Agric For Meteorol 123:13–39. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, McClain CR, Feldma GC, Los SQ, Tucker CI, Falkowski PG, Field CB, Frouin R, Esaias WE, Kolber DD, Pollack NH (2001) Biospheric primary production during an ENSO transition. Science 291:2594–2597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busing RT, Fujimori T (2005) Biomass, production and woody detritus in an old coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest. Plant Ecol 177:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen WB, Spies TA (1992) Estimating structural attributes of douglas fir/western hemlock forest stands from Landsat and SPOT imagery. Remote Sens Environ 41:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbin JD, Thomsen MA, Dawson TE, D’Antonio CM (2005) Summer water use by California coastal prairie grasses: fog, drought, and community composition. Oecologia 145:511–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran PJ, Dungan JL, Gholz HL (1992) Seasonal LAI in slash pine estimated with Landsat. Remote Sens Environ 39:3–13Google Scholar
  9. Daly C, Gibson WP, Doggett M, Smith J, Taylor G (2004) Up-to-date monthly climate maps for the conterminous United States. In: Proceedings of the 14th AMS conference on applied climatology, 84th AMS annual meeting combined preprints, American Meteorological Society, Seattle, January 13–16, 2004, Paper P5.1, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis SD, Mooney HA (1985) Comparative water relations of adjacent California shrub and grassland communities. Oecologia 66:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer DT, Christopher J, Still CJ, Williams AP (2009) Significance of summer fog and overcast for drought stress and ecological functioning of coastal California endemic plant species. J Biogeogr 36:783–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gavlak R, Horneck D, Miller RO, Kotuby-Amacher J (2003) Soil, plant, and water reference methods for the western region, 2nd edn. WCC-103 Publication, WREP-125, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray JT, Schlesinger WH (1981) Biomass, production, and litterfall in the coastal sage scrub of southern California. Am J Bot 68:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henson P, Usner DJ (1996) The natural history of Big Sur. University of California Press, Los Angeles, p 416Google Scholar
  15. Hicke JA, Asner GP, Randerson JT, Tucker CJ, Los SO, Birdsey R, Jenkins JC, Field CB, Holland EA (2002) Satellite-derived increases in net primary productivity across North America, 1982–1998. Geophys Res Lett 29(10):1427. doi: 10.1029/2001GL013578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsu W-C, Remar A, Williams E, McClure A, Kannan S, Steers R, Schmidt C, Skiles J (2012) The changing California coast: relationships between climatic variables and coastal vegetation succession. In: ASPRS 2012 annual conference, Sacramento, March 19–23, 2012Google Scholar
  17. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnstone JA, Dawson TE (2010) Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:4533–4538PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones JB Jr (2001) Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 384Google Scholar
  20. Kolb KJ, Davis SD (1994) Drought tolerance and xylem embolism in co-occurring species of coastal sage and chaparral. Ecology 75:648–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li S, Potter C, Hiatt C (2012) Monitoring of net primary production in California rangelands using Landsat and MODIS satellite remote sensing. Natl Res 3:56–65. Accessed 17 Feb 2014
  22. Long JN, Turner J (1975) Aboveground biomass of understorey and overstory in an age sequence of four douglas-fir stands. J Appl Ecol 12:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malmström CM, Thompson MV, Juday GP, Los SO, Randerson JT, Field CB (1997) Interannual variation in global scale net primary production: testing model estimates. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 11:367–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monteith JL (1972) Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 9:747–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Potter CS (1999) Terrestrial biomass and the effects of deforestation on the global carbon cycle. Bioscience 49:769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Potter CS, Randerson JT, Field CB, Matson PA, Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Klooster SA (1993) Terrestrial ecosystem production: a process model based on global satellite and surface data. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 7:811–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Potter CS, Wang S, Nikolov NT, McGuire AD, Liu J, King AW, Kimball JS, Grant RF, Frolking SE, Clein JS, Chen JM, Amthor JS (2001) Comparison of boreal ecosystem model sensitivity to variability in climate and forest site parameters. J Geophys Res 106:33,671–33,688Google Scholar
  28. Potter C, Klooster S, Myneni R, Genovese V, Tan P, Kumar V (2003) Continental scale comparisons of terrestrial carbon sinks estimated from satellite data and ecosystem modeling 1982–1998. Glob Planet Change 39:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Potter C, Klooster S, Huete A, Genovese V (2007) Terrestrial carbon sinks for the United States predicted from MODIS satellite data and ecosystem modeling. Earth Interact 11:1–21Google Scholar
  30. Potter C, Klooster S, Genovese V (2012) Net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems from 2000 to 2009. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0460-2
  31. Rich PM, Dubayah R, Hetrick WA, Saving SC (1994) Using viewshed models to calculate intercepted solar radiation: applications in ecology. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Technical Papers, Bethesda, pp 524–529Google Scholar
  32. Tanner BD (1990) Automated weather stations. Remote Sens Rev 5(1):73–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thornthwaite CW (1948) An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr Rev 38:55–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vourlitis GL (2012) Aboveground net primary production response of semi-arid shrublands to chronic experimental dry-season N input. Ecosphere 3:art22. doi: 10.1890/ES11-00339.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations