Premium
Modelling ecohydrological feedbacks in forest and grassland plots under a prolonged drought anomaly in Central Europe 2018–2020
Author(s) -
Kleine Lukas,
Tetzlaff Doerthe,
Smith Aaron,
Dubbert Maren,
Soulsby Chris
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
hydrological processes
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.222
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1099-1085
pISSN - 0885-6087
DOI - 10.1002/hyp.14325
Subject(s) - groundwater recharge , environmental science , evapotranspiration , grassland , soil water , hydrology (agriculture) , vegetation (pathology) , water content , groundwater , water cycle , soil science , ecology , aquifer , geology , medicine , geotechnical engineering , pathology , biology
Recent studies have highlighted the importance of understanding ecohydrological drought feedbacks to secure water resources under a changing climate and increasing anthropogenic impacts. In this study, we monitored and modelled feedbacks in the soil–plant‐atmosphere continuum to the European drought summer 2018 and the following 2 years. The physically based, isotope‐aided model EcH 2 O‐iso was applied to generic vegetation plots (forest and grassland) in the lowland, groundwater‐dominated research catchment Demnitzer Millcreek (NE Germany; 66 km 2 ). We included, inter alia, soil water isotope data in the model calibration and quantified changing “blue” (groundwater recharge) and “green” (evapotranspiration) water fluxes and ages under each land use as the drought progressed. Novel plant xylem isotope data were excluded from calibration but were compared with simulated root uptake signatures in model validation. Results indicated inter‐site differences in the dynamics of soil water storage and fluxes with contrasting water age both during the drought and the subsequent 2 years. Forest vegetation consistently showed a greater moisture stress, more rapid recovery and higher variability in root water uptake depths from a generally younger soil water storage. In contrast, the grassland site, which had more water‐retentive soils, showed higher and older soil water storage and groundwater recharge fluxes. The damped storage and flux dynamics under grassland led to a slower return to younger water ages at depth. Such evidence‐based and quantitative differences in ecohydrological feedbacks to drought stress in contrasting soil‐vegetation units provide important insights into Critical Zone water cycling. This can help inform future progress in the monitoring, modelling and development of climate mitigation strategies in drought‐sensitive lowlands.