Future global water scarcity partially alleviated by vegetation responses to atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> and climate change

Stacey, Jessica; Betts, Richard; Hartley, Andrew; Mercado, Lina; Gedney, Nicola

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-51

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51

Preprints

07 Feb 2025

| 07 Feb 2025

Future global water scarcity partially alleviated by vegetation responses to atmospheric CO₂ and climate change

Jessica Stacey, Richard Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina Mercado, and Nicola Gedney

Abstract. Accurate water scarcity projections are essential for effective adaptation strategies. Most existing studies rely on hydrology models that often neglect the effects of plant physiological responses to rising CO₂ on the water cycle , such as reduced stomatal opening, which can decrease transpiration and enhance water availability over large scales. Using a land surface model driven by an Earth system model under a high-emission climate scenario, we evaluate how physiological and structural plant responses to rising CO₂ and subsequent climate change affect the Water Scarcity Index (WSI). Our simulations suggest that the combined effects of these plant responses partially alleviate WSI for most regions, largely due to CO₂-induced stomatal closure. However, CO₂- and climate-induced vegetation changes do exacerbate water scarcity in some places, particularly arid regions. By 2076–2095, when incorporating all plant responses in our projections, global median WSI is approximately 12 % lower, and among 291 global river basins, median WSI is between 10 and 70 % lower in 138 basins, home to 80 % of the global population, and between 10 % and 60 % higher in 11 basins, home to 0.2 % of the population. These model results highlight the potential for plant responses to CO₂ to somewhat alleviate water scarcity, noting water scarcity is still projected to worsen in many regions, including highly populated areas. There is an urgent need to gather empirical evidence on the strength of plant responses to CO₂ at large scales to address modelling uncertainties.

Received: 06 Jan 2025 – Discussion started: 07 Feb 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3094 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (3094 KB)

Supplement (1400 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Jul 2026

Future global water scarcity partially moderated by vegetation responses to rising CO₂

Jessica Stacey, Richard A. Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina M. Mercado, and Nicola Gedney

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 4225–4243, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4225-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4225-2026, 2026

Short summary

Jessica Stacey, Richard Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina Mercado, and Nicola Gedney

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-51', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2025

The manuscript by Stacey et al. examines how vegetation responses to rising atmospheric CO₂ and climate change affect global water scarcity projections using the JULES model. The authors assess how physiological (stomatal closure) and structural (leaf area and vegetation cover) changes influence future water supply. The results suggest CO₂-induced stomatal closure increases water availability, potentially alleviating scarcity, particularly in tropical regions, while vegetation expansion may worsen scarcity in some semi-arid and arid areas. Overall, this study makes a valuable contribution to the literature on vegetation-climate-hydrology interactions, and I appreciate the authors' analysis and findings.
Broader suggestions and concerns
Since this study relies on a single model, a more detailed description of key model processes would help readers better understand potential limitations. While a full breakdown of all JULES equations is unnecessary, some critical details are missing. In particular, a brief explanation of the coupled canopy conductance and photosynthesis model from Cox et al. (1998) would be helpful, as the results strongly depend on this component. (For instance, does this simplification overestimate the physiological impacts?) The discussion on limitations (L553-564) mentions issues with stomatal conductance parameterization; rather than only stating this as a limitation, it would be more helpful to discuss how it affects the key findings.
In some cases, such as in Section 3.1, the results come across as relatively intuitive. While I understand that this section serves to introduce the different simulations and their effects on vegetation and water cycle variables, I would argue that the main novelty of the study lies in the quantification and analysis of the Water Scarcity Index (WSI). For that reason, Section 3.1 could be streamlined or more tightly focused, allowing the reader’s attention to shift more quickly toward the WSI results and their broader implications.
The discussion section contains many well-acknowledged limitations, which is appreciated. However, rather than listing them in loosely connected paragraphs, they should be structured to explicitly discuss how each limitation affects the main results. Some parts could also be shortened and streamlined, for instance, the justification for using runoff as a proxy for water availability is reasonable in the context of its role as a water supply source. In my opinion this could be shortened to one sentence.
While this study is an idealized experiment rather than a model performance evaluation, I think it’s important to acknowledge that non-linear biases can emerge when driving JULES with biased GCM inputs. Even though the input fields are identical across simulations, their biases may interact differently with the model’s internal processes. This contradicts your statement in L569-571: „Given that our study focuses on the influence of plant responses – comparing the differences from two simulations with similar biases - HADGEM2-ES and this version of JULES are deemed suitable for our purposes, despite the runoff biases.“ A brief discussion on how these biases might influence the results would improve transparency.
Minor and Editorial Comments
L16: Simplifying and breaking this sentence into clearer segments would improve its readability and ensure that the statistical comparisons are more immediately accessible to the reader.
Section 2.3 (Data): This is more of a stylistic suggestion, but I found this section somewhat fragmented and lacking in flow. A more cohesive, narrative-style format could improve readability. Consider merging some of the sub-subsections to reduce fragmentation, and integrating the definitions of key terminology directly into the text rather than listing them separately in bullet points. This would help create a smoother and more engaging structure.
Figures: The manuscript contains many figures, and some could be streamlined. In my opinion you could merge Figure 1 and Figure 3 and move it to the supplementary materials or place it in the methods section, clarifying that it shows HadGEM2-ES input data to JULES. In Figure 2, adding simulation abbreviations (e.g., S2 - S1 CLIM: VEG) in the second legend for isolated factors could improve clarity.
Tables 1a and 1b: These were difficult to interpret at first glance. It might improve clarity to describe Table 1a in more detail in the text and move it to the supplementary materials. For me Table 1b was the more informative one in explaining the mechanisms, so I suggest keeping the focus there.
L263: Subject-verb agreement: "Climate-induced changes in vegetation distribution drive LAI decrease," not "drives."
L293: The statement: “The climate-induced changes in runoff from the present (2006-2025) to the future (2076-2095) largely align with shifts in precipitation (Fig. 3; right), varying greatly in both magnitude and direction (Fig. 4a,c).” seems contradictory. If they largely align, how can they vary greatly in direction?
L308 – 310: You state that the runoff decreases are driven by CO2 induced LAI increases, but this is hard to see on the map and that raises the question of how large and significant the impact really is.
General formatting: Check for missing spaces between words, unclosed brackets, and misplaced semicolons throughout the text (e.g., L293).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jessica Stacey, 26 Apr 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-51/egusphere-2025-51-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-51', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jun 2025

Summary

The authors address a gap within literature that explores how terrestrial vegetation can modulate water scarcity in future climate and CO₂ concentrations. To isolate stomatal and leaf area responses to climate change and rising CO₂, they analyzed a set of model simulations from JULES with prescribed atmospheric forcings and CO₂. They find that stomata response can alleviate global water scarcity, particularly in the tropics and already wet regions, but can amplify water scarcity in water-limited arid and semi-arid regions. I believe this study is a valuable contribution to the scientific literature and appreciate the authors’ analysis and thorough discussion of the study’s limitations. Additionally, the use of Water Scarcity Index is especially compelling as it incorporates water demands and has direct implications for future water availability.
General comments

The authors focus on a single land-surface model with prescribed atmosphere. The authors could briefly discuss how the findings of these manuscript fit into the broader context. How can the findings from this single model study be applied to other models?
The stomatal conductance model used in JULES is the Leuning one, and it would benefit readers to include a brief explanation on the variables represented in the Leuning model and how it differs from other models (e.g., Ball-Berry, Medlyn, etc.) in formulation and impact on water scarcity.
Stomatal conductance and leaf area contributions to water metrics may have nonlinearities. Stomatal conductance is linked to photosynthesis, which then affects leaf area. The authors can consider addressing some of these nonlinearities and how they might influence results.
The use of physiological and structural response in addition to stomatal and leaf area responses in the introduction is confusing to the reader. It could be helpful to directly link physiological and structural responses to stomatal and leaf area responses. I understand that the authors define “physiological forcing” in the terminology, but the manuscript would benefit if the distinction is made more clear earlier. Additionally, does “vegetation distribution change” refer the the structural response?
Minor specific comments

Table 1a and b were very helpful in understanding the different simulations. An additional line separating calculations vs simulations would help the reader interpret the table, though I do appreciate the bolding attempts for that.
Figure 1 could benefit from removal of the legend since data from only one simulation was used to create the plots. Instead, an overall title (e.g., ‘Annual mean timeseries from S1. CLIM: STOM). The removal of the legend will also allow the plots to be larger.
Runoff as a proxy for water supply intuitively makes sense, but has not been explicitly related in the introduction or methodology section. A sentence for why runoff is used as a proxy in the methodology section would be helpful to the reader. Additionally, surface and sub-surface runoff are analysed, and a distinction and description for the two and what they can tell us would be helpful.
L360: The “decreases” in the last two sentences are not specified and confusing to the reader.
The right plot in Fig. 8 “% difference” could state “% difference of median WSI” for the reader’s ease of reading.
Technical corrections

L151: extra space after period: “bias correction .”

L231: Extra space between “SSP2” and “from”

L264: extra “;” after “Fig. 2n”

L416: Extra “, )” after “(Fig. 9d)”

Generally, double check for extra spaces, missing spaces, commas, and semicolons throughout the manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jessica Stacey, 08 Sep 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-51/egusphere-2025-51-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-51', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2025

The manuscript by Stacey et al. examines how vegetation responses to rising atmospheric CO₂ and climate change affect global water scarcity projections using the JULES model. The authors assess how physiological (stomatal closure) and structural (leaf area and vegetation cover) changes influence future water supply. The results suggest CO₂-induced stomatal closure increases water availability, potentially alleviating scarcity, particularly in tropical regions, while vegetation expansion may worsen scarcity in some semi-arid and arid areas. Overall, this study makes a valuable contribution to the literature on vegetation-climate-hydrology interactions, and I appreciate the authors' analysis and findings.
Broader suggestions and concerns
Since this study relies on a single model, a more detailed description of key model processes would help readers better understand potential limitations. While a full breakdown of all JULES equations is unnecessary, some critical details are missing. In particular, a brief explanation of the coupled canopy conductance and photosynthesis model from Cox et al. (1998) would be helpful, as the results strongly depend on this component. (For instance, does this simplification overestimate the physiological impacts?) The discussion on limitations (L553-564) mentions issues with stomatal conductance parameterization; rather than only stating this as a limitation, it would be more helpful to discuss how it affects the key findings.
In some cases, such as in Section 3.1, the results come across as relatively intuitive. While I understand that this section serves to introduce the different simulations and their effects on vegetation and water cycle variables, I would argue that the main novelty of the study lies in the quantification and analysis of the Water Scarcity Index (WSI). For that reason, Section 3.1 could be streamlined or more tightly focused, allowing the reader’s attention to shift more quickly toward the WSI results and their broader implications.
The discussion section contains many well-acknowledged limitations, which is appreciated. However, rather than listing them in loosely connected paragraphs, they should be structured to explicitly discuss how each limitation affects the main results. Some parts could also be shortened and streamlined, for instance, the justification for using runoff as a proxy for water availability is reasonable in the context of its role as a water supply source. In my opinion this could be shortened to one sentence.
While this study is an idealized experiment rather than a model performance evaluation, I think it’s important to acknowledge that non-linear biases can emerge when driving JULES with biased GCM inputs. Even though the input fields are identical across simulations, their biases may interact differently with the model’s internal processes. This contradicts your statement in L569-571: „Given that our study focuses on the influence of plant responses – comparing the differences from two simulations with similar biases - HADGEM2-ES and this version of JULES are deemed suitable for our purposes, despite the runoff biases.“ A brief discussion on how these biases might influence the results would improve transparency.
Minor and Editorial Comments
L16: Simplifying and breaking this sentence into clearer segments would improve its readability and ensure that the statistical comparisons are more immediately accessible to the reader.
Section 2.3 (Data): This is more of a stylistic suggestion, but I found this section somewhat fragmented and lacking in flow. A more cohesive, narrative-style format could improve readability. Consider merging some of the sub-subsections to reduce fragmentation, and integrating the definitions of key terminology directly into the text rather than listing them separately in bullet points. This would help create a smoother and more engaging structure.
Figures: The manuscript contains many figures, and some could be streamlined. In my opinion you could merge Figure 1 and Figure 3 and move it to the supplementary materials or place it in the methods section, clarifying that it shows HadGEM2-ES input data to JULES. In Figure 2, adding simulation abbreviations (e.g., S2 - S1 CLIM: VEG) in the second legend for isolated factors could improve clarity.
Tables 1a and 1b: These were difficult to interpret at first glance. It might improve clarity to describe Table 1a in more detail in the text and move it to the supplementary materials. For me Table 1b was the more informative one in explaining the mechanisms, so I suggest keeping the focus there.
L263: Subject-verb agreement: "Climate-induced changes in vegetation distribution drive LAI decrease," not "drives."
L293: The statement: “The climate-induced changes in runoff from the present (2006-2025) to the future (2076-2095) largely align with shifts in precipitation (Fig. 3; right), varying greatly in both magnitude and direction (Fig. 4a,c).” seems contradictory. If they largely align, how can they vary greatly in direction?
L308 – 310: You state that the runoff decreases are driven by CO2 induced LAI increases, but this is hard to see on the map and that raises the question of how large and significant the impact really is.
General formatting: Check for missing spaces between words, unclosed brackets, and misplaced semicolons throughout the text (e.g., L293).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jessica Stacey, 26 Apr 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-51/egusphere-2025-51-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-51', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jun 2025

Summary

The authors address a gap within literature that explores how terrestrial vegetation can modulate water scarcity in future climate and CO₂ concentrations. To isolate stomatal and leaf area responses to climate change and rising CO₂, they analyzed a set of model simulations from JULES with prescribed atmospheric forcings and CO₂. They find that stomata response can alleviate global water scarcity, particularly in the tropics and already wet regions, but can amplify water scarcity in water-limited arid and semi-arid regions. I believe this study is a valuable contribution to the scientific literature and appreciate the authors’ analysis and thorough discussion of the study’s limitations. Additionally, the use of Water Scarcity Index is especially compelling as it incorporates water demands and has direct implications for future water availability.
General comments

The authors focus on a single land-surface model with prescribed atmosphere. The authors could briefly discuss how the findings of these manuscript fit into the broader context. How can the findings from this single model study be applied to other models?
The stomatal conductance model used in JULES is the Leuning one, and it would benefit readers to include a brief explanation on the variables represented in the Leuning model and how it differs from other models (e.g., Ball-Berry, Medlyn, etc.) in formulation and impact on water scarcity.
Stomatal conductance and leaf area contributions to water metrics may have nonlinearities. Stomatal conductance is linked to photosynthesis, which then affects leaf area. The authors can consider addressing some of these nonlinearities and how they might influence results.
The use of physiological and structural response in addition to stomatal and leaf area responses in the introduction is confusing to the reader. It could be helpful to directly link physiological and structural responses to stomatal and leaf area responses. I understand that the authors define “physiological forcing” in the terminology, but the manuscript would benefit if the distinction is made more clear earlier. Additionally, does “vegetation distribution change” refer the the structural response?
Minor specific comments

Table 1a and b were very helpful in understanding the different simulations. An additional line separating calculations vs simulations would help the reader interpret the table, though I do appreciate the bolding attempts for that.
Figure 1 could benefit from removal of the legend since data from only one simulation was used to create the plots. Instead, an overall title (e.g., ‘Annual mean timeseries from S1. CLIM: STOM). The removal of the legend will also allow the plots to be larger.
Runoff as a proxy for water supply intuitively makes sense, but has not been explicitly related in the introduction or methodology section. A sentence for why runoff is used as a proxy in the methodology section would be helpful to the reader. Additionally, surface and sub-surface runoff are analysed, and a distinction and description for the two and what they can tell us would be helpful.
L360: The “decreases” in the last two sentences are not specified and confusing to the reader.
The right plot in Fig. 8 “% difference” could state “% difference of median WSI” for the reader’s ease of reading.
Technical corrections

L151: extra space after period: “bias correction .”

L231: Extra space between “SSP2” and “from”

L264: extra “;” after “Fig. 2n”

L416: Extra “, )” after “(Fig. 9d)”

Generally, double check for extra spaces, missing spaces, commas, and semicolons throughout the manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jessica Stacey, 08 Sep 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-51/egusphere-2025-51-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (10 Oct 2025) by Elham R. Freund

AR by Jessica Stacey on behalf of the Authors (21 Nov 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by editor) (03 Feb 2026) by Elham R. Freund

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript and for carefully addressing the comments provided by the two reviewers. The manuscript has improved substantially following your revisions. However, several issues still require clarification and further refinement before the manuscript can be considered for publication in HESS.

In addition to the specific comments provided below, I kindly ask that you undertake a thorough language review to ensure correct grammar, clarity, and a smooth flow of the text throughout the manuscript.

Please find my point-by-point comments below. I look forward to receiving your detailed responses and the revised version of the manuscript.
Best regards,
Elham Freund

Specific comments

L35–39:
Please consider repositioning this paragraph. Beginning the introduction with this statement does not seem appropriate.

General comment on terminology:
The terms physiological response and physiological forcing (which represent different concepts) are used inconsistently throughout the manuscript and are sometimes mixed with or separated from climate-change-induced effects. This creates confusion. Although Reviewer 2 also raised this point and you attempted clarification, the terminology remains unclear. Please revise carefully and consistently throughout.

L57–58:
Please provide a reference.

L73–74:
“At the canopy-level, this effect can offset or even reverse the increase in runoff from reduced stomatal openings …”
Please clarify the mechanism. If the increase in runoff results from reduced evapotranspiration due to decreased stomatal conductance under elevated CO₂, this explanation should be stated explicitly.

L76:
Please explicitly state the two opposing factors (e.g., increased vegetation growth vs. stomatal closure).

L87, 98, 104, 191:
The term physiological forcing is used repeatedly. Since “forcing” and “response” are conceptually different, please reconsider the terminology. In many places, vegetation physiological response appears to be more accurate. Please ensure consistent usage throughout.

L92:
Is the projected reduction in ET due to increased stomatal closure? Please clarify.

L97:
“Comparable to the impact of radiative forcing” – please explain this statement more explicitly and provide a reference.

L99:
Consider ending the sentence after “around the globe.” Start a new sentence: “These studies generally suggest …”

L102–104:
Please clarify wording. Do you mean that observations show declining runoff in more arid regions? Consider revising for precision.

L103–104:
Consider rewriting for clarity, e.g.: “Observed streamflow shows limited sensitivity to vegetation physiological responses to increased CO₂.” This may help avoid confusion with the term physiological forcing.

L104–106:
“Dominant effect” – dominant on what specifically? Also clarify whether this is compared to or as opposed to structural responses. Please provide references to support this statement.

L107–114:
This paragraph reads as general background material and may fit better earlier in the introduction (before the detailed vegetation discussion).

L116–119:
This section is difficult to follow. Please clarify what is meant by physiological forcing, or use the exact terminology adopted in the cited study.

L123:
“Shifted to a decrease by the 2050s” – please quantify the magnitude of the decrease.

L123–126:
Please justify the use of a standalone hydrological model. Why would fully coupled models not suffice? What hydrological processes are missing from the land surface model that necessitate a separate model?

L138 and throughout:
Use hydrological model consistently (not “hydrology model”).

L149–153:
Please clarify the experimental design and scenarios more explicitly and concisely. The description is currently difficult to follow.

L156–157:
“The influence of different plant responses” – influence on what? Please specify.

L173:
Please delete “following the formula: (b − a)/a”; the explanation is already clear.

L192:
Replace “to be” with “as”.

L546–547:
This result is a key finding and should also be highlighted in the abstract.

L691:
Use “in the tropics” rather than “particularly the tropics”.

L698–700:
This statement represents an important conclusion. Please consider including it in the abstract.

Hide

AR by Jessica Stacey on behalf of the Authors (29 Mar 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (22 Apr 2026) by Elham R. Freund

AR by Jessica Stacey on behalf of the Authors (13 May 2026) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Jul 2026

Future global water scarcity partially moderated by vegetation responses to rising CO₂

Jessica Stacey, Richard A. Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina M. Mercado, and Nicola Gedney

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 4225–4243, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4225-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4225-2026, 2026

Short summary

Jessica Stacey, Richard Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina Mercado, and Nicola Gedney

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51-supplement

Jessica Stacey, Richard Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina Mercado, and Nicola Gedney

Viewed

Total article views: 10,406 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
6,893	3,308	205	10,406	523	268	334

HTML: 6,893
PDF: 3,308
XML: 205
Total: 10,406
Supplement: 523
BibTeX: 268
EndNote: 334

Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Feb 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2025	494	116	15	625
Mar 2025	210	58	5	273
Apr 2025	356	100	14	470
May 2025	344	155	0	499
Jun 2025	350	145	35	530
Jul 2025	191	165	5	361
Aug 2025	604	224	15	843
Sep 2025	2,863	220	35	3,118
Oct 2025	270	210	5	485
Nov 2025	280	280	15	575
Dec 2025	105	466	30	601
Jan 2026	210	403	10	623
Feb 2026	312	252	5	569
Mar 2026	212	276	7	495
Apr 2026	47	89	1	137
May 2026	20	121	5	146
Jun 2026	19	20	2	41
Jul 2026	6	8	1	15

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Feb 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2025	494	116	15	625
Mar 2025	210	58	5	273
Apr 2025	356	100	14	470
May 2025	344	155	0	499
Jun 2025	350	145	35	530
Jul 2025	191	165	5	361
Aug 2025	604	224	15	843
Sep 2025	2,863	220	35	3,118
Oct 2025	270	210	5	485
Nov 2025	280	280	15	575
Dec 2025	105	466	30	601
Jan 2026	210	403	10	623
Feb 2026	312	252	5	569
Mar 2026	212	276	7	495
Apr 2026	47	89	1	137
May 2026	20	121	5	146
Jun 2026	19	20	2	41
Jul 2026	6	8	1	15

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 10,392 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 10,392 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Cited

Latest update: 16 Jul 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3094 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Plants typically transpire less with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, leaving more water in the ground for human use, but many future water scarcity assessments ignore this effect. We use a land surface model to examine how plant responses to carbon dioxide and climate change affect future water scarcity. Our results suggest that including these plant responses increases overall water availability for most people, highlighting the importance of their inclusion in future water scarcity studies.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

Future global water scarcity partially alleviated by vegetation responses to atmospheric CO2 and climate change

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Cited

1 citations as recorded by crossref.

Future global water scarcity partially alleviated by vegetation responses to atmospheric CO₂ and climate change