ET come home: potential evapotranspiration in geographical ecology

Authors

  • Joshua B. Fisher,

    Corresponding author
    1. Environmental Change Institute and Biodiversity Research Group, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Robert J. Whittaker,

    1. Environmental Change Institute and Biodiversity Research Group, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
    2. Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Yadvinder Malhi

    1. Environmental Change Institute and Biodiversity Research Group, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
    Search for more papers by this author

Joshua B. Fisher, Water and Carbon Cycles Group, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA, 91109-8099, USA.
E-mail: joshbfisher@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Aim  Many macroecological analyses are based on analyses of climatological data, within which evapotranspiration estimates are of central importance. In this paper we evaluate and review the use of evapotranspiration models and data in studies of geographical ecology to test the likely sensitivity of the analyses to variation in the performance of different metrics of potential evapotranspiration.

Location  Analyses are based on: (1) a latitudinal transect of sites (FLUXNET) for 11 different land-cover types; and (2) globally gridded data.

Methods  First, we review the fundamental concepts of evapotranspiration, outline basic evapotranspiration models and describe methods with which to measure evapotranspiration. Next, we compare three different types of potential evapotranspiration models – a temperature-based (Thornthwaite type), a radiation-based (Priestley–Taylor) and a combination (Penman–Monteith) model – for 11 different land-cover types. Finally, we compare these models at continental and global scales.

Results  At some sites the models differ by less than 7%, but generally the difference was greater than 25% across most sites. The temperature-based model estimated 20–30% less than the radiation-based and combination models averaged across all sites. The combination model often gave the highest estimates (22% higher than the radiation-based model averaged across all sites). For continental and global averages, the potential evapotranspiration was very similar across all models. However, the difference in individual pixels was often larger than 150 mm year−1 between models.

Main conclusions  The choice of evapotranspiration model and input data is likely to have a bearing on model fits and predictions when used in analyses of species richness and related phenomena at geographical scales of analysis. To assist those undertaking such analyses, we provide a guide to selecting an appropriate evapotranspiration model.

Ancillary