Cited by 616Plant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsPlant Ecology and Soil ScienceEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales

Stephenson, Nathan·1998·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Correlative approaches to understanding the climatic controls of vegetation distribution have exhibited at least two important weaknesses: they have been conceptually divorced across spatial scales, and their climatic parameters have not necessarily represented aspects of climate of broad physiological importance to plants. Using examples from the literature and from the Sierra Nevada of California, I argue that two water balance parameters—actual evapotranspiration (AET) and deficit (D)—are biologically meaningful, are well correlated with the distribution of vegetation types, and exhibit these qualities over several orders of magnitude of spatial scale (continental to local). I reach four additional conclusions. (1) Some pairs of climatic parameters presently in use are functionally similar to AET and D; however, AET and D may be easier to interpret biologically. (2) Several well‐known climatic parameters are biologically less meaningful or less important than AET and D, and consequently are poorer correlates of the distribution of vegetation types. Of particular interest, AET is a much better correlate of the distributions of coniferous and deciduous forests than minimum temperature. (3) The effects of evaporative demand and water availability on a site's water balance are intrinsically different. For example, the ‘dry’ experienced by plants on sunward slopes (high evaporative demand) is not comparable to the ‘dry’ experienced by plants on soils with low water‐holding capacities (low water availability), and these differences are reflected in vegetation patterns. (4) Many traditional topographic moisture scalars—those that additively combine measures related to evaporative demand and water availability—are not necessarily meaningful for describing site conditions as sensed by plants; the same holds for measured soil moisture. However, using AET and D in place of moisture scalars and measured soil moisture can solve these problems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.00233.x

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stephenson, N.
Affiliations
United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
Stephenson, Nathan
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-09
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
855-870
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W2138822692
Cited by
616
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 16
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Biogeography (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • National Park Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Plant Ecology and Soil Science
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
actual evapotranspiration, drought stress, vegetation distribution, water balance, evaporative demand, water availability, soil moisture, coniferous and deciduous forests, spatial scale, Sierra Nevada

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