IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i7p3245-d1907061.html

Global Patterns of Ecosystem Transpiration and Carbon–Water Coupling: An Intercomparison of Four Partitioning Models Using Eddy Covariance Data for Sustainable Water Management

Author

Listed:
  • Haonan Wang

    (Remote Sensing Information and Digital Earth Center, College of Computer Science and Technology, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Shanshan Yang

    (Remote Sensing Information and Digital Earth Center, College of Computer Science and Technology, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Wilson Kalisa

    (Remote Sensing Information and Digital Earth Center, College of Computer Science and Technology, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Ruiyun Zeng

    (Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Jingwen Wang

    (Center for Geospatial Information, Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 1068 Xueyuan Avenue, Shenzhen University Town, Shenzhen 518060, China)

  • Dan Cao

    (Key Laboratory of UAV Emergency Rescue Technology, China Fire and Rescue Institute, Beijing 102202, China)

  • Sha Zhang

    (School of Geographic Sciences, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050025, China)

  • Jiahua Zhang

    (Remote Sensing Information and Digital Earth Center, College of Computer Science and Technology, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Ayalkibet M. Seka

    (Remote Sensing Information and Digital Earth Center, College of Computer Science and Technology, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

Abstract

Ecosystem transpiration (T) is the core process in terrestrial water and carbon cycles. Accurately estimating T is critical to improving evapotranspiration (ET) models and understanding global ecosystem responses to climate change. In this study, we evaluated four ET partitioning methods (TEA, Z16, L19, and Y21) using 368 global eddy covariance (EC) sites and 15 sap flow sites. Intercomparison results showed that TEA, Z16, and Y21 maintained good consistency, whereas L19 exhibited lower agreement, primarily due to its high sensitivity to energy closure errors and poor non-linear fitting accuracy under extreme conditions. Validation against sap flow data indicated that Z16 performed best (R 2 = 0.45, KGE = 0.52), followed by Y21, while TEA had the lowest accuracy due to systematic overestimation driven by unremoved persistent background soil evaporation in its training dataset. Global analysis revealed that mean annual T ranged from 213 mm yr −1 (Z16) to 294 mm yr −1 (TEA), with annual T/ET varying between 0.45 (Z16) and 0.63 (TEA). Trend analysis further showed consistent increasing trends across all four methods for both annual T (0.33–0.83 mm·yr −2 ) and annual T/ET (0.0015–0.0019 yr −1 ). Additionally, a notably stronger relationship was found between gross primary productivity (GPP) and T than between GPP and ET. Despite substantial differences in model structures, these methods effectively capture the temporal dynamics of T and the coupled relationships between ecosystem carbon and water fluxes. Our findings provide critical benchmarks for terrestrial water cycle modeling and sustainable water resource management under a changing climate.

Suggested Citation

  • Haonan Wang & Shanshan Yang & Wilson Kalisa & Ruiyun Zeng & Jingwen Wang & Dan Cao & Sha Zhang & Jiahua Zhang & Ayalkibet M. Seka, 2026. "Global Patterns of Ecosystem Transpiration and Carbon–Water Coupling: An Intercomparison of Four Partitioning Models Using Eddy Covariance Data for Sustainable Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-32, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:7:p:3245-:d:1907061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/7/3245/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/7/3245/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:7:p:3245-:d:1907061. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.