the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Diurnal heating of the lower atmosphere over land determines the Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD)
Abstract. The Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) is a key climatological variable that relates to atmospheric dryness, vegetation productivity and terrestrial water and carbon fluxes. It is often interpreted to be a direct reflection of the atmospheric moistening by land evaporation, or its absence, and hypothesized to play a central role in land-atmosphere interactions. Here, we show that a large part of VPD results from the diurnal heating of the lower atmosphere, so that it is tightly linked to the Diurnal Air Temperature Range (DTR). We use an analytical expression for DTR that mechanistically links it to changes in the heat content of the lower atmosphere, which we then use to estimate VPD using the slope of the saturation vapor pressure curve. When applied across continents, our approach reproduces observed spatial and temporal variability in VPD with R2 of 0.9 and 0.8 respectively. It captures observed responses of VPD to solar radiation, clouds, and soil water stress across diverse climate and moisture regimes. It also explains the characteristic hump-shaped relationship between evaporation and VPD as an emergent consequence of changes in DTR during transition from energy- to water-limited conditions. Our findings suggest that much of the observed VPD variability and its responses can be explained by the thermodynamic controls on lower-atmospheric heating, rather than moistening. This explanation of VPD variations implies that VPD largely responds to land surface energy partitioning, with important implications for interpreting VPD-ecosystem relationships, land-atmosphere feedbacks and evaluating aridity trends under global warming.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Earth System Dynamics.
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.- Preprint
(2941 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(925 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Sep 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3930', Ziqian Zhong, 14 Aug 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3930', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Aug 2026
reply
The authors address an important topic concerning vapor pressure deficit (VPD), which is generally treated as an atmospheric state variable. They further investigate whether VPD responds to surface energy partitioning, as represented by the diurnal temperature range (DTR). Understanding this potential connection could improve our interpretation of land–atmosphere feedbacks. The authors conduct a series of analyses to support their conclusion that thermodynamic controls on heating contribute substantially to VPD variability. Overall, the manuscript is well written and organized.
However, I have several major concerns regarding some of the statements and the results used to support them. I therefore recommend that the following issues be addressed before the manuscript is considered suitable for publication in Earth System Dynamics.
Major concerns
L185–190: The statement appears to be based mainly on the relationship between DTR (proxy for atmospheric heating) and VPD. However, the close agreement between DTR and VPD is partly expected because their relationship is predefined in Eq. 6. Therefore, similar trends between the two variables do not necessarily demonstrate a causal role of heating in VPD variability. More importantly, the role of atmospheric moisture is not examined. It is therefore unclear from Fig. 3 whether VPD is more sensitive to DTR or to moisture variability. An additional assessment that explicitly quantifies the relative contributions of temperature and moisture would strengthen this conclusion.
L215: The contributions of radiation, water stress, and minimum VPD to VPD are assessed. Radiation appears to dominate the global VPD distribution in Fig. 4F, which is reasonable when considering the overall magnitude of VPD shown in Fig. 4E. However, water stress and minimum VPD also appear to capture the longitudinal variations more effectively, including peaks near 30°W, 0°, and 15°E that more closely resemble the estimated and observed maximum VPD in Fig. 4D. Thus, the roles of water stress and minimum VPD may be underestimated in the current interpretation. The authors should provide a more quantitative comparison of the contributions of these factors.
L270–275: In the analysis of the evaporation–VPD relationship, the influence of vegetation activity does not appear to be separated from that of soil water stress. Consequently, when LE crosses the turning point from the energy-limited to the water-limited regime in Fig. 5A, it remains unclear whether the reduction in LE is primarily caused by soil moisture stress or reduced vegetation activity. Focusing the analysis on non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated regions could help isolate the role of soil water availability. Alternatively, the authors could explicitly account for vegetation activity in this analysis.
Minor concerns
L28: Please define or specify rh and esat.
L37: Please revise to “land-surface ‘wetness’ and radiative conditions, as well as …”
L56: How well supported is this assumption? Please provide additional justification or evidence.
L58: Please define or specify ea.
L58: This statement requires support from the relevant literature.
L150–155: Please explain the purpose of the grey bands shown in Fig. 2C and F.
L160: What might be the reason for the overestimation? A brief discussion would be helpful.
L173: It is difficult to visually identify the increasing range of DTR in the current version of Fig. 3. Consider improving the figure presentation or providing a quantitative indication of this relationship.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3930-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 317 | 106 | 13 | 436 | 43 | 11 | 11 |
- HTML: 317
- PDF: 106
- XML: 13
- Total: 436
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find my comments on the manuscript in the attached PDF.