CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsHydrology and Drought Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Evapotranspiration saturation amplifies climate sensitivity of terrestrial water yield

Open access
Rotenberg, Eyal, Tatarinov, Fyodor, Muller, Jonathan D., Yakir, Dan·2025·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-66570-6PMC PMC12749472

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Predictions of climate change over land indicate drying trends in the form of ecological and agricultural droughts over many regions (1-6), and increased flooding in others (7). Globally, evapotranspiration (ET) from vegetated areas consumes about 63% of annual precipitation8, which is expected to increase with global warming (9,10), and can approach 100% in drylands (11) beyond which ecosystems are unsustainable. As global climate change progresses, it remains unknown what fraction of the precipitation will remain available for runoff, recharge of aquifers and consumption, or prevent ecosystems’ collapse in dry regions (7,12). Here, we show using a global dataset that evapotranspiration from ecosystems displays a conservative ‘saturation effect’ at ~460 mm across climates with a precipitation range of ~4000 mm. This implies that changes in precipitation are preferentially reflected in ecosystem water yield (WY; the residual between precipitation and evapotranspiration). Consequently, changes in WY are greatly enhanced compared with precipitation changes, both in observations and model-based future projections. In dry regions, ecosystems will reach the unsustainable state (negative WY) faster than expected based on predicted changes in precipitation alone, imposing land cover changes and impacting water availability for ecological and societal needs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-025-66570-6

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Evapotranspiration saturation across ecosystems. A Relationship across global FLUXNET sites between mean annual evapotranspiration (ETobs) and predicted annual evapotranspiration (ETpred), calculated using the Budyko equation with PET derived from the Priestley–Taylor method. Data are binned by 100 mm intervals of precipitation. Error bars indicate standard deviations; the blue line represents the 1:1 line. Data include 453 data years from 182 sites. Two sites marked by red circle (4 years) were excluded from regression. B Dependence of annual total observed ET on the measured annual precipitation (P) binned by 100 mm of precipitation. Error bars represent standard deviations, the blue line is 1:1 line, a few outliers (representing 9 years out 867 data years) were excluded from the regression (marked by red circles).; and C dependence of annual mean latent heat flux (LE = λ·ETobs, where λ is the enthalpy of vaporization) on annual mean net radiation (Rn), grouped by precipitation classes (in mm yr⁻¹), using data from all biomes. N indicates the number of site-years available; differences in N reflect variation in data completeness across variables.
Fig. 1 Evapotranspiration saturation across ecosystems. A Relationship across global FLUXNET sites between mean annual evapotranspiration (ETobs) and predicted annual evapotranspiration (ETpred), calculated using the Budyko equation with PET derived from the Priestley–Taylor method. Data are binned by 100 mm intervals of precipitation. Error bars indicate standard deviations; the blue line represents the 1:1 line. Data include 453 data years from 182 sites. Two sites marked by red circle (4 years) were excluded from regression. B Dependence of annual total observed ET on the measured annual precipitation (P) binned by 100 mm of precipitation. Error bars represent standard deviations, the blue line is 1:1 line, a few outliers (representing 9 years out 867 data years) were excluded from the regression (marked by red circles).; and C dependence of annual mean latent heat flux (LE = λ·ETobs, where λ is the enthalpy of vaporization) on annual mean net radiation (Rn), grouped by precipitation classes (in mm yr⁻¹), using data from all biomes. N indicates the number of site-years available; differences in N reflect variation in data completeness across variables.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Water yield response to precipitation by biome. Variations in annual ecosystem water yield (WY) as a function of annual mean precipitation (P) across eddy covariance (EC) flux sites, grouped by biome type. Biome acronyms are defined in Table S1; site data are summarized in Table S2. N indicates the number of data years available for each biome.
Fig. 2 Water yield response to precipitation by biome. Variations in annual ecosystem water yield (WY) as a function of annual mean precipitation (P) across eddy covariance (EC) flux sites, grouped by biome type. Biome acronyms are defined in Table S1; site data are summarized in Table S2. N indicates the number of data years available for each biome.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Projected global changes in precipitation and enhanced water yield. Projected (CMIP6; see “Methods”) changes in precipitation (P) and water yield (WY) over land, based on multi-model means for the periods 1980–1999 and 2080–2099 (denoted by subscripts 20 and 21, respectively). A Relative changes in precipitation are calculated as: ΔP (%) = (P₂₁ − P₂₀) / P₂₀ × 100. B Relative changes in water yield (WYP–E) are computed as: ΔWY (%) = (WY₂₁ − WY₂₀) / WY₂₀ × 100, where WY is approximated as P − E. Values are plotted against baseline P₂₀. Positive (red) and negative (blue) changes are shown separately for land areas within ±70° latitude. Lines represent means within 100-mm precipitation bins. Green points ( ± 10% change) are excluded from bin averaging. Inset maps show the spatial distribution of relative changes in ΔP (panel A) and ΔWY (panel B), illustrating that WY exhibits enhanced relative changes compared with P. Note: In some dry regions (e.g., the Sahel, Australia), even small reductions in P produce large relative changes in WY. In ~1.7% of land grid cells, WY decreased despite increases in P, mainly in parts of Australia where evaporation was suppressed. The data were drawn using open-source application by QGIS Association, http://www.qgis.org.
Fig. 3 Projected global changes in precipitation and enhanced water yield. Projected (CMIP6; see “Methods”) changes in precipitation (P) and water yield (WY) over land, based on multi-model means for the periods 1980–1999 and 2080–2099 (denoted by subscripts 20 and 21, respectively). A Relative changes in precipitation are calculated as: ΔP (%) = (P₂₁ − P₂₀) / P₂₀ × 100. B Relative changes in water yield (WYP–E) are computed as: ΔWY (%) = (WY₂₁ − WY₂₀) / WY₂₀ × 100, where WY is approximated as P − E. Values are plotted against baseline P₂₀. Positive (red) and negative (blue) changes are shown separately for land areas within ±70° latitude. Lines represent means within 100-mm precipitation bins. Green points ( ± 10% change) are excluded from bin averaging. Inset maps show the spatial distribution of relative changes in ΔP (panel A) and ΔWY (panel B), illustrating that WY exhibits enhanced relative changes compared with P. Note: In some dry regions (e.g., the Sahel, Australia), even small reductions in P produce large relative changes in WY. In ~1.7% of land grid cells, WY decreased despite increases in P, mainly in parts of Australia where evaporation was suppressed. The data were drawn using open-source application by QGIS Association, http://www.qgis.org.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Site-level contrasts in evapotranspiration and water yield. A Multi-year average water yield (WY) at two paired ecosystem sites: a forest (ENF; Birya) and an adjacent grassland (GRA; Kadita), both located in Israel (see the data in the Table S3). Despite having the same mean annual precipitation (P) of 746 mm, the mean ET differs substantially between the sites (545 mm yr⁻¹ for ENF and 366 mm yr⁻¹ for GRA), resulting in distinct WY and PWY=0 values. B Comparison of multi-year annual evapotranspiration (ET; insensitive to P), and water yield (WY; high sensitivity to P) as a function of annual precipitation (P) at the Niwot Ridge evergreen needleleaf forest (ENF) site in the United States (mean P = 800 mm yr⁻¹; mean ET = 589 mm yr⁻¹). Site metadata for Niwot Ridge available at: https://ameriflux.lbl.gov/sites/siteinfo/US-NR1.
Fig. 4 Site-level contrasts in evapotranspiration and water yield. A Multi-year average water yield (WY) at two paired ecosystem sites: a forest (ENF; Birya) and an adjacent grassland (GRA; Kadita), both located in Israel (see the data in the Table S3). Despite having the same mean annual precipitation (P) of 746 mm, the mean ET differs substantially between the sites (545 mm yr⁻¹ for ENF and 366 mm yr⁻¹ for GRA), resulting in distinct WY and PWY=0 values. B Comparison of multi-year annual evapotranspiration (ET; insensitive to P), and water yield (WY; high sensitivity to P) as a function of annual precipitation (P) at the Niwot Ridge evergreen needleleaf forest (ENF) site in the United States (mean P = 800 mm yr⁻¹; mean ET = 589 mm yr⁻¹). Site metadata for Niwot Ridge available at: https://ameriflux.lbl.gov/sites/siteinfo/US-NR1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 97 · Cited by 15

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed Masson-Delmotte V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou). Cambridge University Press (2021).
  2. Caretta, M. A. et al. Water. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed H. O. Pörtner D. C. R., M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama). Cambridge University Press (2022).
  3. Yang, Y. T. et al. Evapotranspiration on a greening Earth. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 626–641 (2023). · DOI
  4. Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313, 1068–1072 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Zhang, K. et al. A global dataset of terrestrial evapotranspiration and soil moisture dynamics from 1982 to 2020. Scientific Data 11, 445 (2024). · DOI
  6. Ellison, D., Futter, M. N. & Bishop, K. On the forest cover-water yield debate: from demand- to supply-side thinking. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 806–820 (2012). · DOI
  7. Fisher, J. B. et al. The future of evapotranspiration: Global requirements for ecosystem functioning, carbon and climate feedbacks, agricultural management, and water resources. Water Resour. Res. 53, 2618–2626 (2017). · DOI
  8. Bren, L., Lane, P. & McGuire, D. An empirical, comparative model of changes in annual water yield associated with pine plantations in southern Australia. Aust. Forestry 69, 275–284 (2006). · DOI
  9. Yang, H., Xu, H., Huntingford, C., Ciais, P. & Piao, S. Strong direct and indirect influences of climate change on water yield confirmed by the Budyko framework. Geogr. Sustainability 2, 281–287 (2021). · DOI
  10. Budyko, M. I. & Gerasimov, I. P. The heat and water-balance of the earths surface, the general-theory of physical-geography and the problem of the transformation of nature. Sov. Geogr. Rev. Transl. 2, 3–12 (1961).
  11. Zhang, L., Dawes, W. R. & Walker, G. R. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 37, 701–708 (2001). · DOI
  12. Bosch, J. M. & Hewlett, J. D. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapo-transpiration. J. Hydrol. 55, 3–23 (1982). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Williams, C. A. et al. Climate and vegetation controls on the surface water balance: Synthesis of evapotranspiration measured across a global network of flux towers. Water Resources Res. 48, W06523 (2012). · DOI
  14. Baldocchi, D. Measuring fluxes of trace gases and energy between ecosystems and the atmosphere - the state and future of the eddy covariance method. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3600–3609 (2014). · DOI
  15. Kool, D. et al. A review of approaches for evapotranspiration partitioning. Agric. Meteorol. 184, 56–70 (2014). · DOI
  16. Yaseef, R. az, Yakir, N., Rotenberg, D., Schiller, E. & Cohen, G. S. Ecohydrology of a semi-arid forest: partitioning among water balance components and its implications for predicted precipitation changes. Ecohydrology 3, 143–154 (2010). · DOI
  17. Stoy, P. C. et al. Reviews and syntheses: Turning the challenges of partitioning ecosystem evaporation and transpiration into opportunities. Biogeosciences 16, 3747–3775 (2019). · DOI
  18. Buckley, T. N. How do stomata respond to water status? N. Phytologist 224, 21–36 (2019). · DOI
  19. Grossiord, C. et al. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. N. Phytologist 226, 1550–1566 (2020). · DOI
  20. Massmann, A., Gentine, P. & Lin, C. J. When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? J. Adv. Modeling Earth Syst. 11, 3305–3320 (2019). · DOI
  21. Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016). · DOI
  22. Tenhunen, J. D., Lange, O. L., Gebel, J., Beyschlag, W. & Weber, J. A. Changes in photosynthetic capacity, carboxylation efficiency, and co2 compensation point associated with midday stomatal closure and midday depression of net co2 exchange of leaves of quercus-suber. Planta 162, 193–203 (1984). · DOI
  23. Banerjee, T. et al. Turbulent transport of energy across a forest and a semiarid shrubland. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 10025–10038 (2018). · DOI
  24. Brugger, P. et al. Contrasting turbulent transport regimes explain cooling effect in a semi-arid forest compared to surrounding shrubland. Agric. Meteorol. 269, 19–27 (2019). · DOI
  25. Rotenberg, E. & Yakir, D. Distinct patterns of changes in surface energy budget associated with forestation in the semiarid region. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1536–1548 (2011). · DOI
  26. Muller, J. D., Rotenberg, E., Tatarinov, F., Oz, I. & Yakir, D. Evidence for efficient nonevaporative leaf-to-air heat dissipation in a pine forest under drought conditions. N. Phytologist 232, 2254–2266 (2021). · DOI
  27. Muller J. D. et al. Detailed in situ leaf energy budget permits the assessment of leaf aerodynamic resistance as a key to enhance non-evaporative cooling under drought. Plant Cell Environ. 46, 3128–3143 (2022). · DOI
  28. Dusenge, M. E., Duarte, A. G. & Way, D. A. Plant carbon metabolism and climate change: elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on photosynthesis, photorespiration and respiration. N. Phytologist 221, 32–49 (2019). · DOI
  29. Yang, Y. T., Roderick, M. L., Zhang, S. L., McVicar, T. R. & Donohue, R. J. Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in climate projections. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 44 (2019). · DOI
  30. Asner, G. P., Scurlock, J. M. O. & Hicke, J. A. Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 191–205 (2003). · DOI
  31. Xue, B.-L. et al. Global patterns, trends, and drivers of water useefficiency from 2000 to 2013. Ecosphere 6, 10:174 (2015). · DOI
  32. Chen, X. & Sivapalan, M. Hydrological basis of the Budyko curve: Data-guided exploration of the mediating role of soil moisture. Water Resour. 56, 10 (2020).
  33. Chen, Z. F., Wang, W. G., Cescatti, A. & Forzieri, G. Climate-driven vegetation greening further reduces water availability in drylands. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 1628–1647 (2023). · DOI
  34. Milly, P. C. D. Climate, soil-water storage, and the average annual water-balance. Water Resour. Res. 30, 2143–2156 (1994). · DOI
  35. Preisler, Y. et al. Mortality versus survival in drought-affected Aleppo pine forest depends on the extent of rock cover and soil stoniness. Funct. Ecol. 33, 901–912 (2019). · DOI
  36. Priestley, C. H. B. & Taylor, R. J. On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameter. Monthly weather Rev. 100, 81–92 (1971). · DOI
  37. Cowan, I. R. & Farquhar, G. D. Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. Symposium Society of Experimental Biology 31, 471–505 (1977).
  38. Farquhar, G. D., Sharkey, T. D. & Ehleringer, J. R. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO₂ assimilation in leaves of C₃ species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Lloyd, J. & Farquhar, G. D. The CO₂ dependence of photosynthesis, plant growth responses to elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and their interaction with soil nutrient status. Funct. Plant Biol. 23, 915–925 (1996).
  40. Medlyn, B. E. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011). · DOI
  41. Still C. J. et al. No evidence of canopy-scale leaf thermoregulation to cool leaves below air temperature across a range of forest ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2205682119 (202). · DOI
  42. Beer, C. et al. Temporal and among-site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem level. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23, 1–13 (2009). · DOI
  43. Gentine, P. et al. Coupling between the terrestrial carbon and water cycles-a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 8 (2019). · DOI
  44. Cooley, S. S., Fisher, J. B. & Goldsmith, G. R. Convergence in water use efficiency within plant functional types across contrasting climates. Nat. plants 8, 341–345 (2022). · DOI
  45. Mauder, M., Foken, T. & Cuxart, J. Surface-Energy-Balance Closure over Land: A Review. Bound. -Layer. Meteorol. 177, 395–426 (2020). · DOI
  46. Mauder M., Jung M., Stoy P., Nelson J. & Wanner L. Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites revisited. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 358, 110235 (2024). · DOI
  47. Dohn, J. et al. Tree effects on grass growth in savannas: Competition, facilitation and the stress-gradient hypothesis. J. Ecol. 101, 202–209 (2013). · DOI
  48. Zhang, M. F. et al. A global review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: Importance of scale, climate, forest type and hydrological regime. J. Hydrol. 546, 44–59 (2017). · DOI
  49. Knapp, A. K., Ciais, P. & Smith, M. D. Reconciling inconsistencies in precipitation-productivity relationships: implications for climate change. N. Phytologist 214, 41–47 (2017). · DOI
  50. Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013). · DOI
  51. Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  52. Lemordant, L. & Gentine, P. Vegetation response to rising CO2 impacts extreme temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 1383–1392 (2019). · DOI
  53. Zarakas, C. M. et al. Plant physiology increases the magnitude and spread of the transient climate response to CO2 in CMIP6 earth system models. J. Clim. 33, 8561–8578 (2019). · DOI
  54. Huxman, T. E. et al. Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency. Nature 429, 651–654 (2004). · DOI
  55. Vicente-Serrano, S. M. et al. Evidence of increasing drought severity caused by temperature rise in southern Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044001 (2014). · DOI
  56. Qubaja, R. et al. Partitioning evapotranspiration and its long-term evolution in a dry pine forest using measurement-based estimates of soil evaporation. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 281, 107831 (2020). · DOI
  57. Rohatyn, S. et al. Differential impacts of land use and precipitation on ‘ecosystem water yield’. Water Resources Res. 54, 5475–5470 (2018). · DOI
  58. Rohatyn, S. et al. Large variations in afforestation-related climate cooling and warming effects across short distances. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 18 (2023). · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Rotenberg, E., Tatarinov, F., Muller, J. D., & Yakir, D.
Affiliations
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Corresponding author
  • Rotenberg, Eyal
  • Yakir, Dan
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-11-23
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
11577-11577
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-025-66570-6
PMC
PMC12749472
OpenAlex
W4416585883
Cited by
15
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Israel Science Foundation (2481/22)
  • Keren Kayemet LeIsrael (KKL) IES-Weizmann Institute of Science
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
Keywords
climate sensitivity, rainfall variability, flood risk, ecosystem sustainability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evapotranspiration saturation amplifies climate sensitivity of terrestrial water yield. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-025-66570-6
The paper
Rotenberg, E., Tatarinov, F., Muller, J. D., & Yakir, D. (2025). Evapotranspiration saturation amplifies climate sensitivity of terrestrial water yield. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-66570-6