Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evapotranspiration Partitioning of Eucalyptus benthamii and Pinus taeda During Early Stand Development

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasing demand for bioenergy from intensively managed woody crops raises concerns of increased evapotranspiration and potential decreases in water yield. Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) is currently the most cultivated species in the southeastern USA, the country’s wood basket. However, Eucalyptus species could achieve greater productivity but with unknown ramifications for water budgets. To address the knowledge gap, we determined annual water budgets of loblolly pine and Eucalyptus benthamii (eucalypt) from growing years 3 through 5 in a replicated (n = 3) two-factor design comparing species and groundwater depth. Paired plots were established across a depth-to-groundwater gradient from shallow (~ 2 m) to deep (~ 8 m). Hydrologic budgets were constructed by measuring precipitation, interception, soil evaporation, and transpiration. Eucalypt evapotranspiration and above-ground biomass production for growing years 3 through 5 were on average 25 and 14% greater than pine, respectively; however, evapotranspiration did not differ across groundwater depths. At the end of growing year 5, eucalypt had higher transpiration and evapotranspiration per unit area than pine. Soil evaporation was substantial in young plantations (nearly 500 mm) in growing year 3 but declined as the canopy closed. Partitioning of evapotranspiration components in developing bioenergy plantations was dynamic due to canopy development driven decreases in soil evaporation and increases in transpiration and interception; total evapotranspiration was less variable from year to year. Water use efficiency (WUE, kg biomass/m3 H2O) per unit evapotranspiration was similar between species, but WUE per unit transpiration was higher in pine. Considering total evapotranspiration in young plantations can affect WUE interpretations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are included in the supplementary materials.

References

  1. Wear DN, Greis JG (2012) The southern forest futures project:technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-178. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, p 542. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-178

  2. Langholtz M, Stokes B, Eaton L (2016) Billion-Ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/1271651

  3. Griffiths NA, Rau BM, Vaché KB, Starr G, Bitew MM, Aubrey DP, Martin JA, Benton E, Jackson CR (2018) Environmental effects of short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy: what is and isn’t known. GCB Bioenergy 2019(11):554–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Younger SE, Jackson CR, Rasmussen TC (2020) Relationships among forest type, watershed characteristics, and watershed ET in rural basins of the Southeastern US. J Hydrol 591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125316

  5. Kline KL, Coleman MD (2010) Woody energy crops in the southeastern United States: two centuries of practitioner experience. Biomass & Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.005

  6. Hinchee M, Rottmann W, Mullinax L, Zhang C, Chang S, Cunningham M, Pearson L, Nehra N (2009) Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 45(6):619–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-009-9235-5

  7. Carter MC, Foster CD (2006) Milestones and millstones: a retrospective on 50 years of research to improve productivity in loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manage 227(1):137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.014

  8. Hall KB, Stape J, Bullock BP, Frederick D, Wright J, Scolforo HF, Cook R (2019) A growth and yield model for eucalyptus benthamii in the Southeastern United States. For Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxz061

  9. Maier CA, Albaugh TJ, Cook RI, Hall K, McInnis D, Johnsen KH, Johnson J, Rubilar RA, Vose JM (2017) Comparative water use in short-rotation Eucalyptus benthamii and Pinus taeda trees in the Southern United States. For Ecol Manage 397:126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.04.038

  10. Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR (2001) Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour Res 37(3):701–708. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900325

  11. Jackson RB, Jobbágy EG, Avissar R, Roy SB, Barrett DJ, Cook CW, Farley KA, le Maitre DC, McCarl BA, Murray BC (2005) Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310(5756):1944–1947. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1119282

  12. Vose JM, Miniat CF, Sun G, Caldwell PV (2014) Potential implications for expansion of freeze-tolerant eucalyptus plantations on water resources in the southern United States. For Sci 60:1–13. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.14-087

  13. Albaugh JM, Domec JC, Maier CA, Sucre EB, Leggett ZH, King JS (2014) Gas exchange and stand-level estimates of water use and gross primary productivity in an experimental pine and switchgrass intercrop forestry system on the Lower Coastal Plain of North Carolina, U.S.A. Agric For Meteorol 192(193):27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.02.013

  14. Benyon RG, Doody TM (2015) Comparison of interception, forest floor evaporation and transpiration in Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus globulus plantations. Hydrol Process 29(6):1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10237

  15. Caldwell PV, Jackson CR, Miniat CF, Younger SE, Vining JA, McDonnell JJ, Aubrey DP (2018) Woody bioenergy crop selection can have large effects on water yield: a southeastern United States case study. Biomass Bioenerg 117:180–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.07.021

  16. Schlichter T, Montes V (2012) Forests in development : a vital balance. Springer Science+Business Media B.V

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Zolfaghar S, Villalobos-Vega R, Cleverly J, Zeppel M, Rumman R, Eamus D (2014) The influence of depth-to-groundwater on structure and productivity of Eucalyptus woodlands. Aust J Bot 62(5):428–437. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT14139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zolfaghar S, Villalobos-Vega R, Zeppel M, Cleverly J, Rumman R, Hingee M, Boulain N, Li Z, Eamus D (2017) Transpiration of Eucalyptus woodlands across a natural gradient of depth-to-groundwater. Tree Physiol 37(7):961–975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thelemann R, Johnson G, Sheaffer C, Banerjee S, Cai H, Wyse D (2010) The effect of landscape position on biomass crop yield. Agron J 102(2):513–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Canadell J, Jackson RB, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia 108(4):583–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00329030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lintern M, Anand R, Ryan C, Paterson D (2013) Natural gold particles in Eucalyptus leaves and their relevance to exploration for buried gold deposits. Nat Commun 4

  22. Morris JD, Collopy JJ (1999) Water use and salt accumulation by Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Casuarina cunninghamiana on a site with shallow saline groundwater. Elsevier, Netherlands 39(2–3):205–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(98)00079-1

  23. Benyon RG, Theiveyanathan S, Doody TM (2006) Impacts of tree plantations on groundwater in south-eastern Australia. Aust J Bot (2):181

  24. Jr Watkins DW, de Moraes MMGA, Asbjornsen H, Mayer AS, Licata J, Lopez JG, Pypker TG, Molina VG, Marques GF, Carneiro ACG, Nuñez HM, Önal H, da NobregaGermano B (2015) Bioenergy development policy and practice must recognize potential hydrologic impacts: lessons from the Americas. Environ Manag 56(6):1295–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0460-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. King JS, Ceulemans R, Albaugh JM, Dillen SY, Domec J-C, Fichot R, Fischer M, Leggett Z, Sucre E, Trnka M, Zenone T (2013) The challenge of lignocellulosic bioenergy in a water-limited world. Bioscience 63(2):102–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kellison RC, Lea R, Marsh P (2013) Introduction of Eucalyptus spp. into the United States with special emphasis on the Southern United States. Int J For Res 2013:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/189393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hart PW, Johnson J, Paim R (2016) Status update on development of a eucalyptus plantation program in the southeastern United States and higher elevations of southern Brazil. Tappi J 15(3):148–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jackson CR, Bitew M, Du E (2014) When interflow also percolates: downslope travel distances and hillslope process zones. Hydrol Process 28(7):3195–3200. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Du E, Jackson CR, Klaus J, McDonnell JJ, Griffiths NA, Williamson MF, Greco JL, Bitew M (2016) Interflow dynamics on a low relief forested hillslope: lots of fill, little spill. J Hydrol 534:648–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jackson CR, Du E, Klaus J, Griffiths NA, Bitew M, McDonnell JJ (2016) Interactions among hydraulic conductivity distributions, subsurface topography, and transport thresholds revealed by a multitracer hillslope irrigation experiment. Water Resour Res 52(8):6186–6206. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Klaus J, Jackson CR (2018) Interflow is not binary: a continuous shallow perched layer does not imply continuous connectivity. Water Resour Res 54(9):5921–5932. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Griffiths NA, Jackson CR, Bitew MM, Fortner AM, Fouts KL, McCracken K, Phillips JR (2017) Water quality effects of short-rotation pine management for bioenergy feedstocks in the southeastern United States. For Ecol Manage 400:181–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Klaus J, McDonnell JJ, Jackson CR, Du E, Griffiths NA (2015) Where does streamwater come from in low-relief forested watersheds? A dual-isotope approach. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19(1):125–135. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-125-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Flach GP, Harris MK, Hiergesell RA, Smits AD, Hawkins KL (1999) Regional groundwater flow model for C, K, L, and P reactor areas, Savannah River site, Aiken, South Carolina (U). Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708339/

  35. SRNS (2011) Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2010, in: A.R. Mamatey (Ed.) Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Aiken, SC

  36. Squires MF, Vose RS, Applequist S, Durre I, Arguez A, Yin X, Heim RR, Owen TW (2012) NOAA’s 1981–2010 U.S. Climate normals: an overview. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 93(11):1687–1697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rogers VA (1990) Soil survey of Savannah River Plant area, parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties. South Carolina. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5383134

  38. Kilgo JC, Blake JI (2005) Ecology and management of a forested landscape : fifty years on the Savannah River Site, Washington : Island Press, c2005

  39. Ferreira GWD, Rau BM, Aubrey DP (2020) Herbicide, fertilization, and planting density effects on intensively managed loblolly pine early stand development. For Ecol Manage 472:118206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118206

  40. Ruzol R, Staudhammer CL, Younger S, Aubrey DP, Loescher HW, Jackson CR, Starr GS (2022) Water use in a young Pinus taeda bioenergy plantation: effect of intensive management on stand evapotranspiration. Ecosphere 13(6):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Keim RF, Skaugset AE (2003) Modelling effects of forest canopies on slope stability. Hydrol Process 17(7):1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Granier A (1985) Une nouvelle méthode pour la mesure du flux de sève brute dans le tronc des arbres. Ann For Sci 42(2):193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lu P, Urban L, Zhao P (2004) Granier’s thermal dissipation probe (TDP) method for measuring sap flow in trees: Theory and practice. Acta Bot Sin 46(6):631–646

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sun HZ, Aubrey DP, Teskey RO (2012) A simple calibration improved the accuracy of the thermal dissipation technique for sap flow measurements in juvenile trees of six species. Trees Struct Funct 26(2):631–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0631-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bush SE, Hultine KR, Sperry JS, Ehleringer JR (2010) Calibration of thermal dissipation sap flow probes for ring- and diffuse-porous trees. Tree Physiol 30(12):1545–1554. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpq096

  46. Steppe K, Teskey RO, De Pauw DJW (2012) A Mriotte-based verification system for heat-based sap flow sensors, Acta. Horticulture 55–61. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.951.5

  47. Dix MJ, Aubrey DP (2021) Recalibrating best practices, Challenges, and Limitations of Estimating Tree Transpiration Via Sap Flow. Curr Forestry Rep 7:31–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00134-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dix MJ, Aubrey DP (2021) Calibration approach and range of observed sap flow influences transpiration estimates from thermal dissipation sensors. Agric For Meteorol 307:108534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108534

  49. Larson P, Runyan C (2009) Evaluation of a capacitance water level recorder and calibration methods in an urban environment. http://www.umbc.edu/cuere/BaltimoreWTB/pdf/TM/2009/003.pdf

  50. Coyle DR, Aubrey DP, Coleman MD (2016) Growth responses of narrow or broad site adapted tree species to a range of resource availability treatments after a full harvest rotation. For Ecol Manage 362:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Parresol BR (1999) Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and critical comparisons. For Sci 45(4):573–593

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vance E, Loehle C, Wigley T, Weatherford P (2014) Scientific basis for sustainable management of Eucalyptus and Populus as short-rotation woody crops in the US. Forests 5(5):901–918. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5050901

  53. Stape JL, Binkley D, Ryan MG (2004) Eucalyptus production and the supply, use and efficiency of use of water, light and nitrogen across a geographic gradient in Brazil. For Ecol Manage 193(1):17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hatfield JL, Dold C (2019) Water-use efficiency: advances and challenges in a changing climate. Frontiers In Plant Science 10(103). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00103

  55. Abrahamson DA, Dougherty PM, Zarnoch SJ (1998) Hydrological components of a young loblolly pine plantation on a sandy soil with estimates of water use and loss. Water Resour Res 34(12):3503–3513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cardoso Ferreto DO, Reichert JM, Lopes Cavalcante RB, Srinivasan R (2021) Rainfall partitioning in young clonal plantations Eucalyptus species in a subtropical environment, and implications for water and forest management. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 9(3):474–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Samuelson LJ, Stokes TA (2006) Transpiration and canopy stomatal conductance of 5-year-old loblolly pine in response to intensive management. For Sci 52(3):313–323

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gonzalez-Benecke CA, Martin TA (2010) Water availability and genetic effects on water relations of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands. Tree Physiol 30(3):376–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpp118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. White DA, Ren S, Mendham DS, Balocchi-Contreras F, Silberstein RP, Meason D, Iroumé A, Ramirez de Arellano P (2022) Is the reputation of Eucalyptus plantations for using more water than Pinus plantations justified? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 26:5357–5371. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5357-2022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Otto MSG, Hubbard RM, Binkley D, Stape JL (2014) Dominant clonal Eucalyptus grandis×urophylla trees use water more efficiently. For Ecol Manage 328:117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. White D, Beadle C, Worledge D, Honeysett J (2016) Wood production per evapotranspiration was increased by irrigation in plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and E. nitens. New Forest 47(2):303–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9516-2

  62. Forrester DI, Collopy JJ, Morris JD (2010) Transpiration along an age series of Eucalyptus globulus plantations in southeastern Australia. For Ecol Manage 259(9):1754–1760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.023

  63. Hubbard RM, Stape J, Ryan MG, Almeida AC, Rojas J (2010) Effects of irrigation on water use and water use efficiency in two fast growing Eucalyptus plantations. For Ecol Manage 259(9):1714–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.028

  64. Sun G, Noormets A, Gavazzi MJ, McNulty SG, Chen J, Domec JC, King JS, Amatya DM, Skaggs RW (2010) Energy and water balance of two contrasting loblolly pine plantations on the lower coastal plain of North Carolina USA. For Ecol Manag 259(7):1299–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.04.007

  65. Grace JM, Skaggs RW, Chescheir GM (2006) Hydrologic and water quality effects of thinning loblolly pine. Trans ASABE 49(3):645–654. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20484

  66. Butnor JR, Johnsen KH, Anderson PH, Hall KB, Halman JM, Hawley GJ, Maier CA, Schaberg PG (2018) Growth, photosynthesis, and cold tolerance of Eucalyptus benthamii planted in the piedmont of North Carolina. For Sci 65(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxy030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Doody TM, Colloff MJ, Davies M, Koul V, Benyon RG, Nagler PL (2015) Quantifying water requirements of riparian river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia – implications for the management of environmental flows. Ecohydrology 8(8):1471–1487. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Scott Oswald collected monthly LAI and leaf litter and maintained sap flow sensors for the end of growing year 3. Nathan Melear provided critical resource support and field assistance for instrumentation and hydrometric data collection. Wesley Gerrin provided critical field assistance for instrumentation and hydrometric data collection. Shannon Kirk collected and curated weekly hydrometric data for 2017. Chris Lewis collected and curated weekly hydrometric data for 2018 and 2019. Kevin Fouts provided critical support for instrument installation and weekly hydrometric data collection. We thank an anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments that substantially improved the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [grant numbers 2013–67009-21405, 2013–67009-25148, 2019–67019-29906 as well as McIntire-Stennis project 1023985] and was based upon work supported by the Department of Energy to the University of Georgia Research Foundation [grant number DE-EM0004391] and to the U.S. Forest Service Savannah River [grant number DE-EM0003622].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E Green Street, Athens, GA, 30602-2152, USA

    Seth E. Younger, C. Rhett Jackson, Mackenzie J. Dix & Doug P. Aubrey

  2. University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Lab, PO Drawer E, Aiken, SC, 29802, USA

    Seth E. Younger, Mackenzie J. Dix & Doug P. Aubrey

  3. The Jones Center at Ichauway, 3988 Jones Center Drive, Newton, GA, 39870, USA

    Seth E. Younger

  4. Southern Research Station, Center for Integrated Forest Science, USDA Forest Service, 3160 Coweeta Lab Road, Otto, NC, 28734, USA

    Peter V. Caldwell

Authors
  1. Seth E. Younger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Rhett Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mackenzie J. Dix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter V. Caldwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Doug P. Aubrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, CRJ, DPA; data curation, SEY, MJD, DPA; formal analysis, SEY, CRJ, DPA; funding acquisition, CRJ, DPA, PVC; investigation, SEY, MJD, DPA, CRJ, PVC; methodology, CRJ, DPA, PVC; project administration, CRJ, DPA; supervision: CRJ, DPA; visualization: SEY; writing—original draft, SEY; writing—review and editing, CRJ, DPA, SEY, MJD, PVC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth E. Younger.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Younger, S.E., Jackson, C.R., Dix, M.J. et al. Evapotranspiration Partitioning of Eucalyptus benthamii and Pinus taeda During Early Stand Development. Bioenerg. Res. 16, 2204–2218 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-023-10591-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-023-10591-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation