the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Insights into evapotranspiration partitioning based on hydrological observations using the generalized proportionality hypothesis
Abstract. Evapotranspiration (ET) comprises transpiration, soil evaporation, and interception. The partitioning of ET is challenging due to the lack of direct measurements and uncertainty of existing ET partitioning methods. We propose a novel method to estimate long-term mean transpiration to evapotranspiration (T/ET) ratios based on the generalized proportionality hypothesis using long-term mean hydrological observations at the watershed scale. We tested the method using 648 watersheds in the United States classified into six vegetation types. We mitigated impacts of the variability associated with different PET data products by rescaling their original PET values using the product ET/PET ratios in combination with the observed ET calculated from watershed water balance. With PET thus rescaled, our method produced consistent T/ET across six widely used PET products. Shrubs (0.38) and grasslands (0.33) showed lower mean T/ET than croplands (0.46) and forests (respectively 0.73, 0.55, and 0.68 for evergreen needleleaf, deciduous broadleaf, and mixed forests). T/ET showed significant dependence on aridity, leaf area index, and other hydrological and environmental conditions. Using T/ET estimates, we calculated transpiration to precipitation ratios (T/P) ratios and revealed a bell-shaped curve at the watershed scale, which conformed to the bell-shaped relationship with the aridity index (AI) observed at the field scale (Good et al., 2017). This relationship peaked at a T/P between 0.5 and 0.6, corresponding to an AI between 2 and 3 depending on the PET dataset used. These results strengthen our understanding of the interactions between plants and water and provide a new perspective on a long-standing challenge for hydrology and ecosystem science.
- Preprint
(2352 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-622', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2025
reply
This study proposes a method to estimate long-term average T/ET ratios based on the generalized proportionality hypothesis. The authors collect data from 648 watersheds across the US, which are divided into 6 dominant vegetation types. The results show that the T/ET patterns vary with different vegetation types, with shrubs and grasslands show lower ratios and forests show higher ratios. A bell-shaped curve between T/P and aridity index Ep/P is also observed. The study is on a topic of interest to the audience of HESS. I have the following comments that I hope the authors could address in their revision.
Specific comments:
1. The method described in section 2.1 needs to be more clear. Initial evapotranspiration ET0 is described as λVp in Ponce and Shetty (1995). Vp is usually assumed to be the same as PET. But here, ET0 is described as λET. This difference needs to be explained.
In addition, equation 4 suggests that the amount of T is ET minus initial ET in humid regions. In other words, evaporation E is assumed to be the same as initial ET. ET = E + T = ET0 + T. This assumption needs to be further discussed.
In terms of arid regions, a parameter f is introduced. How is this f value determined?
2. Figure 3 shows the λ values according to different vegetation types. It would be helpful if the authors could also show a figure of f values according to different vegetation types.
3. Figure 7: It is surprising to see that LAI does not have a clear relationship with T/ET. Maybe the authors can divide the data points based on the vegetation types and see if there is a clear pattern.
4. In Table 6, T/ET values are similar across 6 different vegetation types, based on the mean values from the 5 selected reference methods. In Table 4, the T/ET values from the new method are more diverse, with lower values in grasslands and shrubs and higher values in forests. This difference between the new method and reference methods should be further discussed.
5. Lines 404-405: The bell-shaped curve is not from the T/ET vs aridity index relationship. It is from the T/P vs aridity index relationship in Figure 10. The T/ET vs aridity index relationship shown in Figure 9a does not have a clear pattern.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-622-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-622', Stephen Good, 15 Apr 2025
reply
The submitted paper by Hassan and coauthors presents an approach to determine the transpiration (T) component of a watershed’s long term hydrologic balance based on the idea of the Generalized Proportionality Hypothesis (GPH). They apply this approach to a large number of different catchments throughout the US. From this they determine some relationships between T as a fraction of ET or P and landcover, aridity, leaf area, soil moisture, as well as between T and the fraction of runoff derived from baseflow.
Overall, this subject is likely of interest to HESS readers, however there already exist a large number of published ET partitioning approaches and the case for this new method needs to be made very carefully. It is worth noting that the approach presented here is based on the long-term hydrologic balance of a basin, which differs from many prior studies, and importantly it evaluates the T/ET fraction in relation to runoff partitioning (i.e. the fraction of runoff derived from baseflow). Given that, I suggest the following refinements of this study are required prior to possible publication:
- Many ET partitioning studies have been conducted, so what new things have we learned about T/ET from this study? The content outlined in the abstract isn’t particularly new or novel. T/ET’s dependence on things like ecosystem type, aridity and LAI have been documented elsewhere before.
-The authors need to much more clearly make the case for the validity of equation (3) and the variables its linked to. It is not obvious when reading this text why this equation should hold and/or how they relate to transpiration. The concepts introduced are not clearly described. The concepts of ET_0 and how it would or wouldn’t compete with PET or baseflow are not defined. What does ‘competition’ mean in this sense. The assumptions inherent in (3) need to be spelled out and a conceptual schematic needs to be presented to the readers. While eq (3) is not clear, nor are the variables f or lambda clear. Why is 10cm chosen. In humid regions f is assumed to be zero, and f is nonzero elsewhere? But even in humid regions there is evaporative loss from the near surface. Also root distributions are not the same as evaporative losses from the near surface. Similarly, what the quantity lambda represents isn’t presented clearly. Rearranging equation (4) gives: Lambda = 1 - T/ET*(1-f), so is this is effectively the non-stomatal evaporation fraction. And thus Lambda*ET = E?
-Baseflow: This method is highly dependent on baseflow separation. It is an interesting and different component of this analysis. However the basflow separation only includes one single sentence. This method needs to be elaborated and explained more thoroughly. Furthermore the sensitivity of the method to this quantity needs to be clarified.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
L15 – Its hard to follow why PET needs to be rescaled when you haven’t introduced how PET is used your generalized proportionally approach.
L22 –Good 2017 also confirmed this relationship at larger scales using remote sensing.
L84 – While I understand the terms ins equation (1) the underlying justification that the right hand side should be equal to the left hand side is missing. Why should these two terms be equal?
L88 – How would ‘initial ET’ compete with baseflow or PET? Please spell this out?
L91- The use of lambda here may be confusing. Often times in evaporation studies lambda (or lambda ET) represents the latent heat of vaporization.
L92 – Why does this vary? What is the basis of this assumption? How is the breakpoint between Arid and Humid specified? Would it not be simpler to set ‘f’ as non-zero in humid zones and keep your method consistent across the aridity gradient? Note that even in humid regions there is some transpiration from the upper 10cm so f wouldn’t be exactly 0.
L101 – How is f determined?
L103 – This is the first time ‘simulation’ has appeared, what is being simulated in this framework?
L104 – The approach in eq (7) and (8) requires determination of Qb and Qd
L106 – Is it assumed that the fraction of roots in the upper 10 cm from the root distribution is equal to the ‘f’ value?
L112 – This method is highly dependent on the baseflow separation. But only one sentence is given here. Please ex
L119 – Why is the ‘soil moisture stress’ calculated? Where is this used? Is there a justification for this definition of soil moisture stress?
L130 – What happened to the inset?
L137 - Which products from the ORNL DAAC were obtained?
L164 – Was the rescaling factor applied to the GLEAM ratio of ET/PET or just to the PET. This is unclear from how the authors have written this sentence. It seems the 0.7 is on the ET/PET but is only applied to the PET?
L170 – Make sure you clarify here (and elsewhere) that your observed values are from streamflow. Other observations, e.g. from remote sensing or flux towers are other possible interpretations if this isn’t clarified.
L267 – Does the linear trend presented here make sense. How can there be a non-zero T value when LAI = 0? Perhaps fitting a trend through the origin makes more sense? It looks fairly non-linear…
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-622-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
108 | 26 | 5 | 139 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 108
- PDF: 26
- XML: 5
- Total: 139
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 67 | 44 |
undefined | 2 | 30 | 20 |
China | 3 | 11 | 7 |
France | 4 | 7 | 4 |
Germany | 5 | 6 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 67