Climatic Change

, Volume 140, Issue 2, pp 259–272 | Cite as

Impact of air pollution induced climate change on water availability and ecosystem productivity in the conterminous United States

  • Kai Duan
  • Ge Sun
  • Yang Zhang
  • Khairunnisa Yahya
  • Kai Wang
  • James M. Madden
  • Peter V. Caldwell
  • Erika C. Cohen
  • Steven G. McNulty


Air pollution from greenhouse gases and atmospheric aerosols are the major driving force of climate change that directly alters the terrestrial hydrological cycle and ecosystem functions. However, most current Global Climate Models (GCMs) use prescribed chemical concentrations of limited species; they do not explicitly simulate the time-varying concentrations of trace gases and aerosols and their impacts on climate change. This study investigates the individual and combined impacts of climate change and air pollution on water availability and ecosystem productivity over the conterminous US (CONUS). An ecohydrological model is driven by multiple regional climate scenarios with and without taking into account the impacts of air pollutants on the climate system. The results indicate that regional chemistry-climate feedbacks may largely offset the future warming and wetting trends predicted by GCMs without considering air pollution at the CONUS scale. Consequently, the interactions of air pollution and climate change are expected to significantly reduce water availability by the middle of twenty-first century. On the other hand, the combined impact of climate change and air pollution on ecosystem productivity is less pronounced, but there may still be notable declines in eastern and central regions. The results suggest that air pollution could aggravate regional climate change impacts on water shortage. We conclude that air pollution plays an important role in affecting climate and thus ecohydrological processes. Overlooking the impact of air pollution may cause evident overestimation of future water availability and ecosystem productivity.


Air pollution Climate change Water availability Ecosystem productivity 



This work was supported by the National Science Foundation EaSM program (AGS-1049200) awarded to North Carolina State University, and the Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center (EFETAC), USDA Forest Service. The emissions for chemical species that are not available from the RCP emissions in WRF/Chem simulations are taken from the 2008 NEI-derived emissions for 2006 and 2010 provided by the U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, and Mexican Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales-SEMARNAT) and National Institute of Ecology (Instituto Nacional de Ecología-INE) as part of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII). The authors acknowledge use of the WRF-Chem preprocessor tool mozbc provided by the Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Lab (ACOM) of NCAR and the script to generate initial and boundary conditions for WRF based on CESM results provided by Ruby Leung, PNNL. The authors acknowledge high-performance computing support for CESM, WRF, and WRF/Chem simulations from Yellowstone (ark:/85065/d7wd3xhc) provided by NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and Information Systems Laboratory. Some development work, testing, and initial applications of WRF/Chem were performed on the Stampede Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) high-performance computing system, which is supported by the National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1053575.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1850_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (383 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 382 kb)


  1. Ahlström A, Schurgers G, Arneth A, Smith B (2012) Robustness and uncertainty in terrestrial ecosystem carbon response to CMIP5 climate change projections. Environ Res Lett 7:044008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnash R (1995) The NWS river forecast system-catchment modeling. Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bytnerowicz A, Omasa K, Paoletti E (2007) Integrated effects of air pollution and climate change on forests: a northern hemisphere perspective. Environ Pollut 147:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell P, Sun G, McNulty S, Cohen E, Moore Myers J (2012) Impacts of impervious cover, water withdrawals, and climate change on river flows in the conterminous US. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:2839–2857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng L, Zhang L, Wang Y-P, Yu Q, Eamus D, O’Grady A (2014) Impacts of elevated CO2, climate change and their interactions on water budgets in four different catchments in Australia. J Hydrol 519:1350–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly C et al (2008) Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol 28:2031–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duan K, Mei Y (2014a) Comparison of meteorological, hydrological and agricultural drought responses to climate change and uncertainty assessment. Water Resour Manag 28:5039–5054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duan K, Mei Y (2014b) A comparison study of three statistical downscaling methods and their model-averaging ensemble for precipitation downscaling in China. Theor Appl Climatol 116:707–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duan K, Mei Y, Zhang L (2016a) Copula-based bivariate flood frequency analysis in a changing climate—a case study in the Huai River basin, China. J Earth Sci 27:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duan K et al. (2016b) Divergence of ecosystem services in U.S. National Forests and Grasslands under a changing climate. Sci Rep. doi: 10.1038/srep24441
  11. Forkel R et al (2015) Analysis of the WRF-Chem contributions to AQMEII phase2 with respect to aerosol radiative feedbacks on meteorology and pollutant distributions. Atmos Environ:630–645Google Scholar
  12. Gantt B, He J, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Nenes A (2014) Incorporation of advanced aerosol activation treatments into CESM/CAM5: model evaluation and impacts on aerosol indirect effects. Atmos Chem Phys 14:7485–7497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ge ZM, Kellomäki S, Zhou X, Wang KY, Peltola H, Väisänen H, Strandman H (2013) Effects of climate change on evapotranspiration and soil water availability in Norway spruce forests in southern Finland: an ecosystem model based approach. Ecohydrology 6:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gedney N, Cox P, Betts R, Boucher O, Huntingford C, Stott P (2006) Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature 439:835–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gedney N, Huntingford C, Weedon G, Bellouin N, Boucher O, Cox P (2014) Detection of solar dimming and brightening effects on Northern Hemisphere river flow. Nat Geosci 7:796–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Givati A, Rosenfeld D (2004) Quantifying precipitation suppression due to air pollution. J Appl Meteorol 43:1038–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grell GA, Peckham SE, Schmitz R, McKeen SA, Frost G, Skamarock WC, Eder B (2005) Fully coupled “online” chemistry within the WRF model. Atmos Environ 39:6957–6975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greve P, Orlowsky B, Mueller B, Sheffield J, Reichstein M, Seneviratne SI (2014) Global assessment of trends in wetting and drying over land. Nat Geosci 7:716–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He J, Zhang Y (2014) Improvement and further development in CESM/CAM5: gas-phase chemistry and inorganic aerosol treatments. Atmos Chem Phys 14:9171–9200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. He J, Zhang Y, Glotfelty T, He R, Bennartz R, Rausch J, Sartelet K (2015a) Decadal simulation and comprehensive evaluation of CESM/CAM5. 1 with advanced chemistry, aerosol microphysics, and aerosol-cloud interactions. J Adv Model Earth Syst 7:110–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. He J et al. (2015b) CESM/CAM5 improvement and application: comparison and evaluation of updated CB05_GE and MOZART-4 gas-phase mechanisms and associated impacts on global air quality and climate. Geosci Model Dev:3999–4025 doi: 10.5194/gmd-8-3999-2015
  22. Huang Y, Dickinson RE, Chameides WL (2006) Impact of aerosol indirect effect on surface temperature over East Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:4371–4376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurrell JW et al (2013) The community earth system model: a framework for collaborative research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:1339–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kay A, Rudd A, Davies H, Kendon E, Jones R (2015) Use of very high resolution climate model data for hydrological modelling: baseline performance and future flood changes. Clim Chang 133:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keenan TF, Hollinger DY, Bohrer G, Dragoni D, Munger JW, Schmid HP, Richardson AD (2013) Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499:324–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khain A, BenMoshe N, Pokrovsky A (2008) Factors determining the impact of aerosols on surface precipitation from clouds: an attempt at classification. J Atmos Sci 65:1721–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krinner G et al. (2005) A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 19. doi: 10.1029/2003GB002199
  28. Noormets A, McNulty SG, DeForest JL, Sun G, Li Q, Chen J (2008) Drought during canopy development has lasting effect on annual carbon balance in a deciduous temperate forest. New Phytol 179:818–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan S, Tian H, Dangal SR, Yang Q, Yang J, Lu C, Tao B, Ren W, Ouyang Z (2015) Responses of global terrestrial evapotranspiration to climate change and increasing atmospheric CO2 in the twenty-first century. Earth's Futur 3(1):15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramanathan V, Crutzen P, Kiehl J, Rosenfeld D (2001) Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science 294:2119–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramanathan V et al (2005) Atmospheric brown clouds: impacts on south Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:5326–5333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenfeld D et al (2008) Flood or drought: how do aerosols affect precipitation? Science 321:1309–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rudd AC, Kay AL (2015) Use of very high resolution climate model data for hydrological modelling: estimation of potential evaporation. Hydrol Res. doi: 10.2166/nh.2015.028 Google Scholar
  34. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Wang W, Powers JG (2005) A description of the advanced research WRF version 2. DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun G, McNulty SG, Moore Myers JA, Cohen EC (2008) Impacts of multiple stresses on water demand and supply across the Southeastern United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:1441–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun G et al (2011) Upscaling key ecosystem functions across the conterminous United States by a water-centric ecosystem model. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 2005–2012:116Google Scholar
  37. Sun G, Caldwell PV, McNulty SG (2015a) Modelling the potential role of forest thinning in maintaining water supplies under a changing climate across the conterminous United States. Hydrol Process. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10469 Google Scholar
  38. Sun S, Sun G, Caldwell P, McNulty S, Cohen E, Xiao J, Zhang Y (2015b) Drought impacts on ecosystem functions of the US National Forests and grasslands: part I evaluation of a water and carbon balance model. For Ecol Manag. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.054 Google Scholar
  39. Sun S, Sun G, Cohen E, McNulty SG, Caldwell PV, Duan K, Zhang Y (2016) Projecting water yield and ecosystem productivity across the United States by linking an ecohydrological model to WRF dynamically downscaled climate data. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20:935–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tao W-K, Chen J-P, Li Z, Wang C, Zhang C (2012) Impact of aerosols on convective clouds and precipitation. Rev Geophys. doi: 10.1029/2011RG000369
  41. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson J, Green A, Kingston D (2014) Potential evapotranspiration-related uncertainty in climate change impacts on river flow: an assessment for the Mekong River basin. J Hydrol 510:259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tian H et al (2012) Century-scale responses of ecosystem carbon storage and flux to multiple environmental changes in the southern United States. Ecosystems 15:674–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. USGS, USDA (2013) Federal standards and procedures for the national watershed boundary dataset (WBD)
  45. Wang G, Yu M, Pal JS, Mei R, Bonan GB, Levis S, Thornton PE (2015a) On the development of a coupled regional climate–vegetation model RCM–CLM–CN–DV and its validation in Tropical Africa. Clim Dyn:1–25Google Scholar
  46. Wang K, Zhang Y, Yahya K, Wu S-Y, Grell G (2015b) Implementation and initial application of new chemistry-aerosol options in WRF/Chem for simulating secondary organic aerosols and aerosol indirect effects for regional air quality. Atmos Environ:716–732Google Scholar
  47. Werner A, Cannon A (2015) Hydrologic extremes–an intercomparison of multiple gridded statistical downscaling methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 12:6179–6239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood AW, Maurer EP, Kumar A, Lettenmaier DP (2002) Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J Geophys Res Atmos 107:4429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wood AW, Leung LR, Sridhar V, Lettenmaier D (2004) Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Clim Chang 62:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yahya K, Wang K, Campbell P, Glotfelty T, He J, Zhang Y (2016) Decadal evaluation of regional climate, air quality, and their interactions over the continental US and their interactions using WRF/Chem version 3.6. 1. Geosci Model Dev 9:671–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang Y (2008) Online-coupled meteorology and chemistry models: history, current status, and outlook. Atmos Chem Phys 8:2895–2932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang Y, Wen X-Y, Jang C (2010) Simulating chemistry–aerosol–cloud–radiation–climate feedbacks over the continental US using the online-coupled weather research forecasting model with chemistry (WRF/Chem). Atmos Environ 44:3568–3582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang Y, Chen Y, Sarwar G, Schere K (2012a) Impact of gas-phase mechanisms on weather research forecasting model with chemistry (WRF/Chem) predictions: mechanism implementation and comparative evaluation. J Geophys Res Atmos 117. doi: 10.1029/2011JD015775
  54. Zhang Y et al (2012b) Development and initial application of the global-through-urban weather research and forecasting model with chemistry (GU-WRF/Chem). J Geophys Res Atmos 117. doi: 10.1029/2012JD017966
  55. Zhang Y, Chen Y, Fan J, Leung L-YR (2015a) Application of an online-coupled regional climate model, WRF-CAM5, over East Asia for examination of ice nucleation schemes: part II. Sensitivity to heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterizations and dust emissions. Climate 3:753–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang Y, Zhang X, Wang K, He J, Leung LR, Fan J, Nenes A (2015b) Incorporating an advanced aerosol activation parameterization into WRF-CAM5: model evaluation and parameterization intercomparison. J Geophys Res Atmos 120:6952–6979CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Duan
    • 1
  • Ge Sun
    • 2
  • Yang Zhang
    • 1
  • Khairunnisa Yahya
    • 1
  • Kai Wang
    • 1
  • James M. Madden
    • 1
  • Peter V. Caldwell
    • 3
  • Erika C. Cohen
    • 2
  • Steven G. McNulty
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, USDA Forest ServiceRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, USDA Forest ServiceOttoUSA

Personalised recommendations