<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-12-4245-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>Energy partitioning and surface resistance of a poplar <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> plantation in northern China</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Energy partitioning and surface resistance of a poplar plantation}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. Kang et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Kang</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name>
          <email>zhqzhang@bjfu.edu.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Noormets</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fang</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zha</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>McNulty</surname><given-names>S. G.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and
Desertification Combating, Ministry of Education, College of <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Soil and Water
Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, PR
China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Beijing Municipal Station of Agro-environmental Monitoring, Beijing 100029, PR
China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center,
Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Raleigh, NC,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Landscape Ecology &amp; Ecosystem Science (LEES) Lab,
Center for Global Change and Earth Observations (CGCEO), <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>and Department of
Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Z. Zhang (zhqzhang@bjfu.edu.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>21</day><month>July</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>14</issue>
      <fpage>4245</fpage><lpage>4259</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>30</day><month>October</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>07</day><month>January</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>23</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>29</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Poplar (<italic>Populus</italic> sp.) plantations have been, on the one hand, broadly used in northern China
for urban greening, combating desertification, as well as for paper and wood
production. On the other hand, such plantations have been questioned
occasionally for their possible negative impacts on water availability
due to the higher water-use nature of poplar trees compared with other tree
species in water-limited dryland regions. To further understand the
acclimation of poplar species to semiarid environments and to evaluate the
potential impacts of these plantations on the broader context of the
region's water supply, we examine the variability of bulk resistance
parameters and energy partitioning in a poplar (<italic>Populus euramericana</italic> cv. “74/76”) plantation
located in northern China over a 4-year period, encompassing both dry and
wet conditions. The partitioning of available energy to latent heat flux
(LE) decreased from 0.62 to 0.53 under mediated meteorological drought by
irrigation applications. A concomitant increase in sensible heat flux (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
resulted in the increase of a Bowen ratio from 0.83 to 1.57. Partial
correlation analysis indicated that surface resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> normalized
by leaf area index (LAI; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:LAI) increased by 50 % under drought
conditions and was the dominant factor controlling the Bowen ratio.
Furthermore, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was the main factor controlling LE during the growing
season, even in wet years, as indicated by the decoupling coefficient
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.45 and 0.39 in wet and dry years, respectively). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
also a major regulator of the LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio, which decreased from 0.81
in wet years to 0.68 in dry years. All physiological and bioclimatological
metrics indicated that the water demands of the poplar plantation were
greater than the amount available through precipitation, highlighting the
poor match of a water-intensive species like poplar for this water-limited
region.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Poplar (<italic>Populus</italic> sp.) plantations are the most dominant
broadleaf forest ecosystems throughout northern and central China,
due to their rapid growth rates, high productivity and wide
adaptability (Gielen and Ceulemans, 2001; Wilske et al., 2009;
Zhang et al., 2011). Since the late-1970s, with the implementation
of the “Three-North Shelterbelt Program” (1978), the “Combating
Desertification Project” (1991), and the “Grain for Green Program
(1999; Wilske et al., 2009), poplar plantations have been playing
a vital role in timber production, bioenergy, urban greening,
desertification control, and carbon sequestration
(Martín-García et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2013). By
2007, China had the largest poplar plantation area in the world
(over 7.0 million ha, Fang, 2008). However, indiscriminate use of
poplar species beyond their native range and habitats may result in
unanticipated consequences. For example, the use of poplars in
water-limited regions may increase the risk of environmental
degradation, soil moisture deficit, hydrologic and vegetation
changes (Gao et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>Poplars require large quantities of water throughout the growing season, and
may experience water limitation even on the mesic sites (Kim
et al., 2008; Stanturf and Oosten, 2014). For example, poplar
plantations could cause the transformation of wetlands into drylands due to
the water-pumping effect on groundwater (Li et al., 2014;
Migliavacca et al., 2009). Thus, poplar plantations have
higher productivity, but also higher water use (Zhou et al., 2013) than other tree species.</p>
      <p>The intensive land use practices in northern China over the past 50 years,
supported by irrigation, are thought to have triggered the decline in its
water table, land degradation, and increases in surface air temperature and
severe droughts (Ding et al., 2007; Qiu et al.,
2012; Wang et al., 2008). Therefore, understanding the
contribution of current land cover, including the effect of the poplar plantations on
regional water resources is essential for long-term sustainability of
ecosystem services and human wellbeing in this region. To date, most
researchers have concentrated primarily on the water balance of forest
ecosystems, with less emphasis on the relationship of forest ecosystems to
their environmental setting. Much can be learned from exploring the
partitioning of available energy and ecosystem responses to meteorological
forcing such as droughts. Not only are these of central importance for
understanding the water and carbon balance (Guo et al.,
2010; Jamiyansharav et al., 2011; Sun et al.,
2010; Takagi et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2007), but
they also help elucidate the degree to which forest water use is in balance
with supply from precipitation, and hence the degree to which plantations
located in water-limited regions are sustainable in the long-term.</p>
      <p>To investigate the variations of energy partitioning and associated
evapotranspiration of poplar plantation under different climate conditions
and to highlight the management strategies for such plantation forests in water-
limited regions, we evaluated energy partitioning at different water
availabilities in a 10-year-old poplar (<italic>Populus euramericana</italic> cv. “74/76”) plantation on sandy
soil in northern China. We hypothesized that drought would trigger
significant increases in the surface resistance and affect energy
partitioning via increasing the Bowen ratio. Specifically, the objectives of
this study were to: (1) quantify the seasonal and inter-annual variability
of energy partitioning and bulk resistance parameters; (2) partition the
control of energy partitioning to biological and climatological components;
and (3) evaluate the long-term potential impact of poplar plantations on the
availability of water for adjacent ecosystems and livelihoods in
water-limited regions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Study site</title>
      <p>The study was carried out in a managed poplar (<italic>Populus euramericana</italic> cv. “74/76”) plantation at
the Daxing Forest Farm, which is located in the southern suburbs of Beijing,
China (116<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>15<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>07<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 39<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>31<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>50<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 30 m a.s.l.). The trees were planted in 1998 with 3 m <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 m
spacing; dead or low-vigor trees were replaced with new saplings in 2001 and 2003.
The stand characteristics over the 4 years of study are provided in Table 1. At the end of 2009, the average height of the trees was 16.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6 m
(mean  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD), and the diameter at breast height (DBH) was 14.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6 cm. The average leaf area index (LAI) of the stand increased over time.
During the growing season, understory shrubs were kept at low density by
manual removal. Perennial herbs included <italic>Chenopodium glaucum Linn.</italic>, <italic>Medicago sativa</italic> L.,
<italic>Melilotus officinalis</italic> (L.) <italic>Lam.</italic>, <italic>Salsola collina Pall.</italic>, and <italic>Tribulus terrestris</italic> L.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The stand characteristics of 4 years from 2006 to 2009, including
the minimum, maximum, and mean temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), the annual precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>),
evapotranspiration (ET), irrigation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, canopy height (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, breast height
diameter (DBH), and leaf area index (LAI). The error estimates are standard
deviation (SD).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mean</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">ET</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">DBH</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">LAI</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(mm)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(mm)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(mm)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(cm)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">(m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">482</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">599</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">10.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.55</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">667</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">560</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">13.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">12.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">28.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">662</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">653</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">13.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">30.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">428</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">511</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">195</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">14.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>The local climate is classified as a sub-humid warm temperate zone, with a
mean (1990–2009) annual temperature of 11.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C; maximum and
minimum temperatures are 40.6 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>27.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C,
respectively. The annual precipitation ranges from 262 to 1058 mm
(1952–2000), with an average of 556 mm, of which 60–70 % falls from
July to September (Daxing Weather Station, 116<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>19<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>56 E,
39<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>43<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>24 N). The annual frost-free period lasts 209
days, and the total hours of sunshine reaches 2772 h per year with 15.5 MJ m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of incoming solar radiation.
The average wind speed is 2.6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>and it mostly comes from the southeast (during the growing season)
and the northwest (outside of the growing season).</p>
      <p>The study area is on the alluvial plain of the Yongding River, and is flat
with an average slope of &lt; 5<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The top 2 m of the
soil is mostly composed of well-drained fluvial sand with a bulk density of
1.43–1.47 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and a pH of 8.25–8.39. The soil porosity is
about 40 % and capillary porosity is 32 %. The mean groundwater depth
over the past 9 years (2001–2009) was 16.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 m, and declined at
an average rate of 0.6 m per year. The maximum pan evaporation occurs from
May through June, exceeding precipitation for the same period. Severe
drought during the beginning of the growing season (from April to June) in
northern China is common. The site was irrigated using pumped
groundwater, and the amount of water supplied was estimated from the water
meter records at the three adjacent wells on a weekly basis from 2006
through 2009. Other management practices have included tilling and weeding
since the establishment of the plantations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Eddy covariance system</title>
      <p>The micrometeorological and eddy flux measurements were conducted at a 32 m
tower in the center of the study site, which was established in June 2005.
The footprint of the eddy flux covariance system, was about 1 km <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 km in
size, with a fetch of at least 300 m in all directions. Fluxes of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
sensible heat, and latent heat were calculated based on eddy-covariance
(EC) principles. The sensors included a CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O infrared analyzer
(Li-7500; LI-COR, Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) and a three-dimensional sonic
anemometer (CSAT-3; Campbell Scientific, Inc., CSI, UT, USA). The anemometer
head was installed towards a predominant wind direction (southeast), and the
IRGA was installed at a slight vertical angle tilted northward (&lt; 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) between the sonic path and anemometer body. The IRGA was calibrated
every year. The EC sensors were mounted initially at a height of 16 m in
2006. This was increased to about 18 m before the start of the growing
season in 2007, and again to 20 m in February 2009 to ensure that the
sensors remained well above the tree canopy.</p>
      <p>Net radiation was measured with net radiometers (Q7.1, REBS, Seattle, WA,
USA) and (CNR-1; Kipp and Zonen, Delft, Netherlands) at 26 m above the
ground. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) was measured with a PAR
quantum sensor (LI-190SB; LI-COR, Inc.) mounted at 20 m. The atmospheric
pressure was measured by a barometric pressure sensor (CS105, CSI) at a height
of 21 m. Air temperatures and humidity were measured with a temperature and
relative humidity probe (HMP45C; Vaisala, Helsinki, Finland) at 5, 10, 15,
and 20 m above ground. Precipitation was measured with a tipping bucket rain
gauge (TE525-L; Texas Electronics, USA) at 22.5 m. Soil heat flux and soil
temperatures were each measured with three soil heat transducers
(HFT3, CSI) and three thermocouples (TCAV107; CSI) located at depths of 5,
10, and 20 cm below the soil surface. Soil water content was measured with
TDR sensors (CS616; CSI) buried at 20 and 50 cm.</p>
      <p>With the exception of the rain gauge, all microclimatic data were recorded
with a data-logger (CR23X; CSI) at 30 min intervals and the fluctuations in
wind speed, sonic temperature and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and H<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O concentrations were
sampled at 10 Hz and recorded by a CR5000 data-logger (CSI).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>2.3. Data processing and QA/QC</title>
      <p>The 30 min mean fluxes were calculated from raw 10 Hz data with an EC
Processor software, version 2.3 (Noormets et al., 2010).
The program is designed for reprocessing EC flux data and can calculate
half-hour mean eddy-covariance fluxes of carbon, water, and energy. The wind
coordinates were rotated using the planar fit method (Paw U
et al., 2000; Wilczak et al., 2001). Fluxes were corrected for
additional sensor heating (Burba et al.,
2008) and fluctuations in air density (Webb et
al., 1980). The data quality controls included: screening of the 30 min
mean eddy-covariance fluxes based on instrument quality flag, integral
turbulence characteristics (Foken and Wichura,
1996), flux stationarity, atmospheric stability, and adequate turbulent
mixing (Goulden et al., 1996). The threshold
of friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below which flux loss occurred was
determined from the seasonal binned relationship between nighttime turbulent
flux of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and friction velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Schmid et al., 2003). The threshold was consistent across different
seasons, but differed slightly between years: 0.18 (2006), 0.12 (2007), 0.14 (2008) and 0.13 m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (2009). Data
gaps shorter than 2 h were filled using linear regressions between the
flux of interest and net radiation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, gaps between 2 h and 7 days
in length were filled using the mean diurnal variation (MDV) method
(Falge et al., 2001), and gaps longer than 7 days were not
filled.</p>
      <p>The 4-year study period was distinctively classified into “wet” and “dry” years. A dry year
referred to a year with annual precipitation less than 85 % of the 20-year average
according to the National Standard of the People's Republic of China (GB/T 20481-2006; China, 2006)
and “wet” when above this average. Years 2007 and 2008 were classified as `wet'
while 2006 and 2009 were `dry' years. We focused on the growing
season when the environmental forcing (e.g., solar radiation and
temperature) for energy and water fluxes and the physiological response of
vegetation were usually strong. In this study, the strongest forcing days
occurred approximately between day 100 (mid-April) and day 300 (late
October). The daytime was defined as the period between sunrise and
sunset with PAR &gt; 4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The regulation of
surface energy and gas exchange is often different during nocturnal periods
(Mahrt, 1999), with heat fluxes at night typically
weaker and markedly less stationary than during the daytime (Wilson et al., 2002b). Midday was defined as the period from 10:00 to
15:00 LST when the coupling between vegetation and the atmosphere was the
strongest.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Biophysical characteristics</title>
      <p>The availability of relative extractable water (REW) content was calculated
to analyze the ecosystem response to drought stress. According to
Granier et al. (2007), soil water stress was assumed to occur when the
REW dropped below the threshold of 0.4. Daily REW is calculated as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>REW</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>VWC</mml:mtext><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>VWC</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>min</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>VWC</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>VWC</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>min</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VWC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VWC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
the minimum and maximum soil volumetric water content, respectively, across the 4
years.</p>
      <p>The Bowen ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reflects the influence of microclimate and the
hydrological cycle on the energy partitioning and water use of the ecosystem
(Perez et al., 2008). The midday <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated as Eq. (2):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LE</mml:mtext></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Based on the daytime half-hourly and daytime totals of turbulent energy
fluxes, the energy balance ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated as Eq. (3):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>BR</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>LE</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the latent and sensible heat storage in the air-column below the
EC system and is calculated as in Eq. (4) (Dou et al.,
2006):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hc</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hc</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where hc is the height of the eddy flux system measurement (32 m), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is air
temperature in the air-column below hc, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is water vapor pressure.</p>
      <p>During midday periods (10:00–15:00 LST), the Penman–Monteith approximation was inverted to
calculate the surface resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (5) (Kumagai
et al., 2004):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mtext>LE</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mfrac><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface resistance to water vapor transport (s  m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, representing four components: bulk stomatal resistance of the
canopy, bulk boundary layer resistance of the vegetation, bulk ground
resistance, and bulk boundary layer resistance of the ground (Admiral et al., 2006; Cho et al., 2012; Perez et
al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2002b).</p>
      <p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the climatological resistance (s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicating the
atmospheric demand (Wilson et al., 2002b) and is calculated
as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the available energy (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is air density (kg  m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the specific heat of the air
(1005 J kg<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (Pa);
LE is the latent heat flux; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the change of saturation vapor
pressure with temperature (Pa K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the psychrometric
constant (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 67 Pa K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Bowen ratio.</p>
      <p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the aerodynamic resistance of the air layer between the canopy
and the flux measurement height (s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, that reflects the aerodynamic
properties of turbulent transport in the near-surface boundary layer
(Holwerda et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2007).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated following Hossen et al. (2011)
and Migliavacca et al. (2009):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>a, m</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>6.2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>a, m</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the aerodynamic resistance for momentum transfer, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the quasi-laminar boundary-layer resistance, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the wind speed, and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the friction velocity.</p>
      <p>The decoupling coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> explains the degree of coupling
between the atmosphere and the vegetation, and describes the relative
control of evapotranspiration by surface resistance and net radiation
(Pereira, 2004). The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value ranges from 0
to 1, with values approaching zero indicating that LE is highly sensitive to
surface resistance and ambient humidity deficit. The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value
approaching 1 indicates that LE or evapotranspiration is mostly controlled
by net radiation (Jarvis and McNaughton, 1986):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          The equilibrium evaporation (LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the climatologically determined
evaporation (atmospheric demand) over an extensive wet surface and is
dependent only on <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature. It is calculated as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>LE</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>eq</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          The ratio LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is also known as the
Priestley–Taylor <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, reflects the control of evaporation by
atmospheric and physiological factors. LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
characterizes the surface dryness of an ecosystem, indicating
whether soil water supply for evapotranspiration of an ecosystem was
limited. An LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of &lt; 1 indicates
water stress and suppressed evapotranspiration. Conversely,
LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 1.26 indicates unrestricted
water supply, and only available energy limits evapotranspiration
(Arain et al., 2003). The LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is dependent
on the leaf area index (LAI), soil water content, meteorological
conditions (e.g., wind speed, solar radiation, VPD (vapor pressure
deficit, air stratification stability, convection, and advection
surface resistance), vegetation types, and altitude (Guo et al.,
2008).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Statistical analysis</title>
      <p>Repeated ANOVA (SPSS) measurements were used for quantifying the changes of
all the biophysical variables, energy fluxes, and bulk parameters across
years. The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test was used to compare the differences of biophysical
variables among different studies. The partial correlation analysis was used
to distinguish the impacts of each of the three resistance parameters
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the Bowen ratios. All analyses were accessed at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Environmental conditions</title>
      <p>The annual precipitation rates in the 4 years of study differed from
the long-term (i.e., 1990–2009) average (556 mm yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Thus,
years 2006 and 2009 were drier and 2007 and 2008 were wetter than
the mean (Table 1). The interannual contrast was exaggerated by the
seasonality of rainfall. Generally, over 90 % precipitation of
each year occurred in April–October, but with different timing and
magnitude among the years. The study site was irrigated during the
dry years of 2006 and 2009 to mitigate drought conditions (Fig. 1).
Seasonal drought stress (REW &lt; 0.4) occurred during
periods in the late growing season of 2006 and 2009, the spring of
2007 and 2009, but not at all in 2008 (Fig. 2a–d). In 2006,
precipitation during the growing season reached 467 mm, of which
51 % had occurred by July. The amount of irrigation was 35 mm
in April, 21 mm in May, and 30 mm in September. The two separate
seasonal drought periods were #1_06 (from DOY – day of year –
164 to 192) and #2_06 (from DOY 231 to 300). The total rainfall
in 2007 and 2008 was similar, but more evenly distributed throughout
the year in 2008. In 2007, drought stress occurred during DOY
110–143 (#1_07) and 151–200 (#2_07). A single rain event
in late May (57 mm) and a few large precipitation events
(&gt; 25 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in July were recorded. The amount
of rainfall in 2009 was the smallest among the 4 years, during which
195mm of irrigation was applied from March to September. There were
several short and scattered droughts across the growing season in
2009 (Fig. 2d). Despite the higher than normal rainfall in the 2 wet
years, there was no flooding or overland runoff.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>The cumulative precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and periodic irrigation during
2006–2009; irrigation in 2006 and 2009 were separately represented by the
solid and dotted brackets, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The growing season <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2008 was significantly lower than in 2007
and 2009 (d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05, Fig. 2e–h). The years
differed in the spring warm-up and the timing of peak temperature (by up to
35.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C). The maximum air temperature occurred in June 2006 and
2009, and in July 2007 and 2008. The warmest month was June 2006 (27.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C).</p>
      <p>The daytime average VPD of the four growing seasons (Fig. 2e–h) was 1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 kPa. The mean VPD in wet years
(i.e., 2007 and 2008) was 1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 kPa, which was significantly lower (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.093, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01)
than in dry years (i.e., 2006 and 2009, 1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8 kPa). The VPD of
the growing season in 2008 (i.e., 1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 kPa) was lower than in the other years
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05). Higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and lower precipitation
in May 2007 led to higher VPD compared to the same period in 2006 and 2008
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). Furthermore, the VPD was the highest in June 2009 (i.e.,
2.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.1 kPa, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05) and the lowest in 2008 (i.e., 1.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 kPa, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The seasonal variation of environmental conditions during
2006–2009, <bold>(a–d)</bold> the relative extractable water (REW; drought periods longer
than 20 days are shaded), daily sum of precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>); <bold>(e–h)</bold> daytime mean
air temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, daytime mean air vapor deficit (VPD).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Seasonal changes in energy partitioning and $\beta$}?><title>Seasonal changes in energy partitioning and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p>The energy partitioning trends of daytime total net radiation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into
latent, sensible heat fluxes (LE and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, soil heat fluxes (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and heat storage
of canopy (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the years 2006–2009 were presented in Fig. 3. Among these
years, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied with solar radiation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.95, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 level), reached the maximum in July, and gradually decreased until
late October (in dry years) or November (in wet years). During the
growing season, there were no significant differences in average daytime
total <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between wet and dry years. The average daytime total <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> during
the growing season displayed great seasonal and annual differences among
the years (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05), with a lower value in wet years (2.1 % in
2007) than in the dry years (4.9 % in 2006; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). Moreover,
the average values of daytime total <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> among the four growing seasons were
0.46, 0.49, 0.51, and 0.54 MJ m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>/<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied from 6.0 % in 2007 to 6.8 % in 2009,
showing no differences between the wet and dry years.</p>
      <p>Partitioning of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into LE and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> differed significantly between the wet
and dry years (Table 3; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 17.599, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). The dominant
turbulent energy flux during the early growing season was sensible heat flux
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with or without drought stress, except in 2006 when the irrigation was
applied (Table 3). Then LE was the dominant driver of energy partitioning
during the middle and late growing seasons under drought stress. The average
daytime total LE was about 20 % greater in wet years (6.77 MJ m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
than in dry years (5.72 MJ m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01). The timing of peak LE
was weakly related to drought, peaking in July in 2006, 2008, and 2009, and
in August in 2007. The peak values of daytime total LE were 16.61,
17.01, 19.72, and 16.27 MJ m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, in 2006–2009
respectively. The daily evaporative fraction (LE/<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was significantly
higher in wet years (60.3 and 64.8 % in 2007 and 2008, respectively) than in dry years (57.1 and 50.4 % in 2006 and 2009,
respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Seasonal patterns of daytime energy components (5-day running
average) during the growing seasons from 2006 to 2009, including net
radiation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, latent heat (LE), sensible heat (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, soil heat flux
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and heat storage term (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The seasonal variation of the midday Bowen ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> displayed a
rapid and significant trend across the growing season, especially at the
beginning (April–June) and the end (September–October) of the growing
season (Fig. 4). The Bowen ratios during the middle of the growing seasons
were all smaller than 1, and approximately lasted from DOY 180–250 in the
dry year and from DOY 180–290 in the wet years. The average midday <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
in the dry years was greater (1.57) than in the wet years (0.83;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 19.176, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). The Bowen ratio showed differences in response
to drought stress across the four growing seasons (Table 3); with much
higher values (&gt; 1) during the drought periods in 2007 and 2009,
but not in 2006. The Bowen ratio was smaller than 1 during drought-stressed
periods in 2008.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Biophysical controls of energy partitioning</title>
      <p>The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied widely at the beginning and the end of growing season, but
changed steadily within a low range during the middle of growing season by
comparison. Moreover, these lower <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values in the dry years lasted for a shorter
period (DOY 190–250) than in the wet years (Fig. 5a). A significantly
negative relationship was found between the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and LAI during the wet
years (Fig. 6). Overall, the seasonal average of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> normalized by leaf
area index (LAI; i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:LAI) was lowest during the wettest year
(2008, 54.1 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05). The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:LAI in the
dry years (106.8 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was 50 % higher than in the wet
years (71.2 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:LAI in the
seasonal drought-stressed periods in 2006, 2007, and 2009 were much higher
than those during unstressed periods (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001, Table 3).</p>
      <p>The average midday <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> peaked in June and decreased in July/August
before reaching a second peak in October (Fig. 5b). The seasonal average
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the growing season ranged from 68.3 to 77.9 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with a mean value of 74.4 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and showed no difference
among the four growing seasons (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05). Figure 5c presents the
seasonal and annual variations of midday <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
the four growing seasons was 23.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.5 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, ranging from 10.6
to 43.5, 9.7 to 52.5, 6.5 to 43.1, and 9.7
to 74.5 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, from 2006 to 2009, respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2007 was
significantly higher than in the dry years (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01), while <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
2008 was smaller than in the dry years (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). However, there
were no significant differences between dry and wet years <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05).</p>
      <p>The seasonal changes of LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values varied between 0.4 and 1.0
during most of the growing seasons (Fig. 5d). The average LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
the 4 years were 0.76, 0.73, 0.89, and 0.63, respectively. The mean
LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the dry years (0.68) was lower than that of wet years
(0.81; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001). Specifically, the value of LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in
drought periods of 2007 and 2009 were much smaller. A significantly
exponential relationship existed between the LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the growing season (Fig. 7).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p>Seasonal and inter-annual variability of the midday (10:00–15:00 LST) mean Bowen ratio
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; 5-day running average) across the growing
seasons, with detailed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> during DOY 185–255 represented in the small pane.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The decoupling coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across the growing seasons peaked in
mid-July in 2008 and in early August in the other years (Fig. 5e). The mean
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the 4 years was 0.41, 0.46, 0.43, and 0.39 (Table 3),
respectively, and was significantly higher in wet years (0.45) than in
dry years (0.40; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.460, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01). Compared to the value during unstressed
periods, the decoupling coefficient during the seasonal drought periods
(#1_06, #2_06; #1_07,
#2_07 and #1_09, #2_
09, #3_09) was much lower in value.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p>Seasonal dynamics of the midday (10:00–15:00 LST) mean surface
resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, climatological resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, aerodynamic
resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and decoupling coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(5-day running average) across the growing seasons from 2006 to 2009.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Energy partitioning and Bowen ratio</title>
      <p>The energy balance ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the current study was 0.88 based on
daytime 30-min fluxes and &gt; 0.96 based on daytime totals
(Table 2). The annual mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at our site was similar to the values
of eight ChinaFlux sites, which averaged 0.83 and ranged from 0.58 to 1.00
(Li et al., 2005). The energy budget is also consistent with
the 50 site-years of flux data from 22 FLUXNET sites, which had energy
closure of 0.34–1.69 (Mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.84, Wilson et
al., 2002a). A recent analysis of 173 FLUXNET sites also found an average
closure of 0.84 (Stoy et al., 2013), although the authors
also detected consistent differences among the biomes based on metrics
of landscape heterogeneity. In addition to the known reasons for decreasing
energy balance closure (Hernandez-Ramirez et al., 2010;
Li et al., 2005; Nakai et al., 2006;
Stoy et al., 2013), management operations at our site (e.g., irrigation,
tilling, and partial felling) may also affect the energy balance. Although
the causes of surface energy balance closure continue to be debated
(Stoy et al., 2013) and will not be conclusively answered in
the current study, the results reported here are similar to other FLUXNET
sites.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>The relationship between leaf area index (LAI) and surface
resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the growing season of the wet and dry years.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The relationships between surface resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Priestley–Taylor coefficient) during growing season of the wet
<bold>(a)</bold> and dry <bold>(b)</bold> year.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Energy balance closure statistics using half-hourly and daytime
totals during growing seasons from 2006 to 2009.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center">Daytime </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col9" align="center">Daytime sum  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2009</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Slope</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.87</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.82</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.07</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.91</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.84</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Intercept</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20.50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17.24</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10.72</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.08</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.63</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.09</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.82</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.82</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p>Daytime was defined as the period between sunrise and
sunset with PAR &gt; 4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; the unit of intercept for half-hourly
values and the daytime sum value were <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and MJ m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>The surface energy partitioning to sensible and latent heat depends
on water potential gradient and surface resistance (Arain et al.,
2003; Baldocchi et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2009). Canopy
development (Guo et al., 2010), rainfall dynamics and irrigation
(Ozdogan et al., 2010) affect these properties to some extent and
could directly lead to a change in soil moisture and the evaporation
component of LE, thereby impacting energy partitioning and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Chen et al., 2009; Ozdogan et al., 2010). However, the impact
of precipitation on the Bowen ratio may vary, even at the same site (Tang et al., 2014). In our study,
detectable responses of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LE</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the Bowen
ratio to drought stress and non-stress periods were observed in
response to soil water supply (Table 3) with a 50 mm threshold on
average (Fig. 8). The variability of energy partitioning during the
growing season was highly sensitive to water availability from
precipitation and irrigation. On an annual scale, the Bowen ratio
appeared linearly related to the total growing season precipitation
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.89, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05). Thus, the Bowen ratio is
very responsive to the site water supply. A similar finding was
reported by Grünwald and Bernhofer (2007) in a temperate
spruce forest.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The value of the soil water supply (WS), energy partitioning ratios,
and biophysical variables in the different growing seasons during 2006–2009.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.80}[.80]?><oasis:tgroup cols="11">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Year</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Periods</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">WS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LE</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(DOY)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(mm)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100–163</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">76.2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>56</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">50.5 (23.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">45.9 (19.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.48 (6.37)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">418.7 (528.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">87.8 (30.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">20.0 (6.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.64 (0.35)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.25 (0.13)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">164–192<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">127.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">68.0 (13.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.2 (11.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.66 (0.35)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">184.0 (94.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">94.9 (45.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">23.8 (5.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.79 (0.19)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.42 (0.14)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">193–230</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">219.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">77.7 (11.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.8 (6.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.19 (0.13)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">50.4 (29.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">51.5 (16.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">27.8 (8.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1.01 (0.24)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.70 (0.12)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">231–300<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">51.9 (12.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.7 (11.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.94 (0.52)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">178.5 (68.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">77.4 (27.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">25.6 (6.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.69 (0.23)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.36 (0.14)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100–143<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">61.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">35.2 (6.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">57.8 (8.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.37 (0.66)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">426.9 (148.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">96.1 (29.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">18.1 (5.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.41 (0.13)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.16 (0.07)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">151–200<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">146.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">49.5 (18.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">37.0 (17.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.41 (1.06)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">314.1 (225.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">91.7 (42.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">25.3 (7.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.58 (0.23)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.35 (0.16)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">200–300</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">396.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">66.0 (16.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">15.5 (8.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.35 (0.32)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">74.1 (27.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">61.1 (22.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">30.4 (9.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.87 (0.20)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.60 (0.15)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100–117</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">53.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16.3 (14.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">71.8 (9.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.86 (1.12)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">206.9 (102.0)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60.7 (22.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">13.6 (4.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.59 (0.35)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.21 (0.14)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">118–155<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">58.8 (12.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">39.5 (10.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.71 (0.36)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">130.8 (48.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">81.1 (32.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">14.7 (4.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.81 (0.23)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.31 (0.11)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">156–188</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">212.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">68.1 (14.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.3 (10.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.35 (0.23)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">70.2 (33.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">56.1 (20.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">19.3 (5.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.94 (0.23)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.53 (0.14)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">189–212<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">26</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">73.5 (12.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">20.4 (7.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.18 (0.15)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">59.3 (27.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">67.4 (41.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">27.8 (6.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1.07 (0.25)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.68 (0.11)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">213–239</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">173.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">74.8 (11.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">11.8 (6.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.24 (0.16)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">61.5 (23.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">55.8 (14.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">19.3 (5.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.92 (0.14)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.57 (0.10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">240–251<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">19.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">60.4 (12.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">23.4 (9.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.42 (0.22)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">88.7 (34.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60.4 (15.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">18.0 (4.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.87 (0.21)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.46 (0.10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">252–300</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">116.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">47.2 (5.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">39.2 (3.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.41 (0.22)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">72.1 (17.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">57.3 (28.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">18.4 (4.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.85 (0.23)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.48 (0.10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100–158<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">37.6<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>52</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">36.0 (16.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">48.8 (13.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.90 (0.83)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">298.9 (150.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">84.2 (39.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">18.2 (3.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.43 (0.19)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.21 (0.08)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">165–186<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">47.8 (15.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">38.1 (14.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.32 (0.78)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">360.5 (139.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">137.4 (43.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">21.2 (5.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.53 (0.28)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.24 (0.10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">187–235</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">265<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">65.9 (12.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.4 (6.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.28 (0.18)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">61.2 (30.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">53.0 (22.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">27.4 (6.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.82 (0.18)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.66 (0.13)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">236–300<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">20.4<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">50.4 (20.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.1 (18.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.28 (1.31)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">208.3 (194.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">72.3 (26.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">26.9 (10.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.64 (0.28)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.39 (0.21)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growing season</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">466<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">59.1 (18.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.8 (16.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.60 (3.94)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">231.4 (338.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">77.9 (33.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">24.0 (7.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.76 (0.30)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.41 (0.21)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growing season</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">630</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">56.6 (19.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.7 (19.6)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.93 (0.98)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">192.2 (190.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">75.4 (34.0)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">26.9 (9.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.73 (0.44)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.46 (0.22)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growing season</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">630</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">66.1 (15.2)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">22.1 (13.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.73 (1.04)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">118.1 (115.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">68.3 (44.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">18.5 (6.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.89 (0.59)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.43 (0.19)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growing season</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">400<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>195</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">48.5 (21.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">34.6 (18.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.54 (2.19)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">248.9 (273.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">77.1 (39.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">23.8 (8.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.63 (0.38)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.39 (0.24)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dry years</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(2006, 2009)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growing season</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">52.6 (22.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.0 (18.4)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.57 (3.17)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">240.3 (306.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">77.5 (36.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">23.9 (8.0)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.68 (0.31)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.40 (0.22)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wet years</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(2007, 2008)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growing season</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">61.5 (18.1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">25.1 (17.0)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.83 (1.01)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">153.1 (159.7)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">71.6 (40.3)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">22.5 (8.9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.81 (0.29)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.45 (0.20)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.80}[.80]?><table-wrap-foot><p>WS is the soil water supply of a period (sum of precipitation and irrigation);
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, Bowen ratio; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the surface resistance; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the climatological resistance;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the aerodynamic resistance; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the Priestley–Taylor coefficient; and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the
decoupling coefficient. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates the drought-stressed periods. The values in the table
represent mean (SD).</p></table-wrap-foot><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></table-wrap>

      <p>By contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> varied from 0.18 to 0.71, with a mean of 0.35 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.15 during most of the growing season in 2008 and in the non-stressed
periods of the other 3 years. This variation was close to 0.42 for deciduous
forests (Wilson et al., 2002b) and 0.55 in a temperate
Douglas fir (Humphreys et al., 2003), which is also similar
to the variations in a ponderosa pine forest in the western United States
(Goldstein et al., 2000) and a
deciduous broadleaved forest in the southern United States
(Wilson and Baldocchi, 2000). Seasonal drought stress
had a discernible impact on the Bowen ratio of this poplar plantation.
However, compared to the reported <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values such as 0.74 in a
temperate mixed forest (Wu et al., 2007), 0.81 in a boreal
Scots pine forest (Launiainen, 2010), and 0.89 in a loblolly
pine plantation (Sun et al., 2010), the average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values in
wet years were close to the above values. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was higher in seasonal
drought periods and dry years than most temperate coniferous forests (Mean
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.07, Wilson et al., 2002b), which typically had higher
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values. The high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value in this study reflects the semiarid
conditions, and suggests a low tree water supply which might be resulted
from the combination of low rainfall, the sandy soil's low water-holding
capacity and the high plant and atmospheric water demand. It has been
suggested that the large-scale establishment of poplar plantations in sandy
semiarid regions of northern China could have an adverse impact on the
region's groundwater reserves (Li et al., 2014;
Petzold et al., 2011). Our findings corroborate the hypothesis that
drought would trigger significant changes in the energy partitioning of
water-demanding poplar species in a water-stressed region.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Biophysical control on Bowen ratio</title>
      <p>The Bowen ratio is dependent on the interactions of climatic and biological
factors (Perez et al., 2008; Wilson and
Baldocchi, 2000). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> quantifies the climatic control on energy
partitioning and tends to decrease the Bowen ratio. A higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> implies
a warm and dry climate in continental regions (Raupach,
2000; Wilson et al., 2002b). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reflects the physiological
control on surface energy exchange of an ecosystem (Costa et
al., 2010; Launiainen, 2010; Zhou et al., 2010)
and generally increases the Bowen ratio.</p>
      <p>In this study, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> similarly varied seasonally with plant phenology and
showed similar seasonal characteristics to other deciduous forests during
the course of the growing season (Cabral et al., 2010;
Kutsch et al., 2008; Li et al., 2012). As reported
by Tchebakova et al. (2002), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in seasonal
drought-stressed periods was much higher than in non-stressed periods.
It has been shown that drought stress during the canopy development affects
leaf area and may have lasting effects on canopy gas exchange through the
entire growing season, even after the moisture limitation is removed
(Noormets et al., 2008), which may explain significant
differences in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the wet years of 2007 and 2008 (Fig. 9). Compared with
the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in other studies, the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>LAI in dry years in the current study
was close to that of the Euphrates Poplar (<italic>Populus euphratica Oliv.</italic>; 130.2 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and smaller than that of the Gansu Poplar (<italic>Populus gansuensis</italic> Wang et Yang; 189.4 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
in semiarid regions (Chen et al., 2004). In wet years
it was similar to that of poplar (58.6 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Wilson et al., 2002b) and boreal aspen during the full-leaf period (51.8 s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> LAI<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Blanken et al.,
1997) in mesic temperate regions. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is primarily driven by solar
radiation, moisture availability, and VPD (Fernández et
al., 2009; Li et al., 2012), and modulated by leaf area and
stomatal resistance, which in turn changes as a function of the above
factors (Wilson and Baldocchi, 2000). Compared to the
strong correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and LAI in wet years, the increased scatter
in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–LAI relationship during dry years (Fig. 6) suggests that
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in dry years was also influenced by other physiological and
non-physiological (e.g., soil evaporation, canopy structure, and turbulence)
factors (Wilson et al., 2002b). The mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
current study was higher than the mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reported for temperate forests
in Wilson et al. (2002b; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.91, d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 741, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), but was <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % lower than the value reported by
Li et al. (2009) in a vineyard in Gansu province in China
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>29.87, d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 741, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001), as might be expected given the
predominant climatic conditions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p>The response of Bowen ratio and  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LE</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to water supply (WS; including precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and irrigation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) during each individual period) of
the different periods across the four growing seasons.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>On the seasonal scale, the Bowen ratio and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of this poplar plantation
were correlated and consistent with Wilson et al. (2002b)
and Li et al. (2009), but differed in wet and dry years (Fig. 10). The water limitation during the dry years manifested in disproportional
increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than the Bowen ratio; this response may serve as an
indicator as to when water reserves are being depleted. At the extremes, the
relationship converges, but as water becomes limiting, stomatal closure and
increased <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> do not appear to be able to affect the seasonal dynamics of
the Bowen ratio. The partial correlation analysis indicated that <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had strong positive and negative effects, respectively, on
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in both wet and dry years (Table 4), which could not be detected
through correlation analysis (e.g., the impact of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Furthermore, the regulation of the Bowen ratio by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> seemed stronger in dry than in wet years. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had a significant
negative impact on the Bowen ratio in wet years, but not in dry years.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p>Seasonal variations of monthly average LAI and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the
growing seasons in the wet years of 2007 and 2008.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4"><caption><p>The correlation analysis between the Bowen ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.80}[.80]?><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col5" align="center">Partial correlation analysis<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col8" align="center">Correlation analysis </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SOCC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Pearson</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.965</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.939</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dry year</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.667</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">347</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.042</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.436</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">349</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.037</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.496</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.221</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.905</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wet year</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.614</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">383</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">385</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.217</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.286</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.80}[.80]?><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Partial correlation analysis was carried out between the Bowen ratio and each of the three resistance
parameters (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the other two as controlling variables.
SOCC is the abbreviation of ”second-order correlation coefficient”.</p></table-wrap-foot><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p>Response of monthly average Bowen ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on surface
resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the wet and dry years.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4245/2015/bg-12-4245-2015-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The average LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the growing season was 0.74 at our site, which
is similar to deciduous forests (0.72; Wilson et al.,
2002b), but smaller than at a temperate broad-leaved forest (0.82; Komatsu, 2005). The average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.42 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.22
(0.39–0.46) was close to the other forests (0.26–0.4,
Wilson and Baldocchi (2000); 0.25–0.43,
Motzer et al. (2005)). As essentially implied by the
Penman–Monteith equation, LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> exponentially related to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the growing
season (Fig. 7), which is equivalent to the logarithmic relationship between
LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (surface conductance) reported by other studies
(Chen et al., 2009; Hossen et al., 2011;
Zhu et al., 2014). The asymptotic value of LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in dry years (0.89) and wet years (0.96) were both lower than the 1.1–1.4
range typical in temperate deciduous forest reported by
Monteith (1995), indicating that our study site was drier than these
reference sites during both dry and wet years. The low LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values
under dry surface conditions of the ecosystem in this study may also be
related to the high porosity of the sandy soil and the low ground water
table (Zhao et al., 2013). Overall, as indicated
by the lower <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values and the significant correlation coefficients
between LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was the major factor controlling
the LE during the growing season, which was consistent with the relations
between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the Bowen ratio. In addition, LE was more coupled to the
atmosphere during the dry years and seasonal drought periods across the
growing seasons, as reported in other studies (Bagayoko et
al., 2007; Bracho et al., 2008; Zha et al.,
2013).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Implications for poplar plantation establishments</title>
      <p>As forestry is a long-term endeavor, with the economic payback decades from
stand establishment, the availability of resources for the stand to prosper
should come naturally to natural resource managers. Supplementing limited
resources directly (fertilization, irrigation) or indirectly (competition
control, site preparation, thinning) is commonplace in commercial forestry,
but it has to be sustainable in the broader context of the region's
ecosystems and livelihoods. As we show in a forthcoming study, the water
needs of poplar plantation exceed the annual precipitation in the region, and
plant survival during dry years depends on irrigation from groundwater. In
the current study, energy partitioning to latent and sensible heat and
surface resistance was sensitive to climatological drought – even under
irrigation – as indicated by low LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (&lt; 1) and low values
of the decoupling coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; Zhu et al.,
2014); the dry surface conditions dominated the poplar plantation in both
wet and dry years. In wet years, the plantation itself is in hydrologic
balance with the water that arrives as precipitation, with
evapotranspiration consuming nearly all of the precipitation. The same is
true in dry years, but irrigation increases ET even further by depleting
groundwater. Even if the plantations were in hydrologic balance with water
delivered as precipitation, their existence and operation could be a threat
to adjacent ecosystems and livelihoods if those rely on runoff or
groundwater recharge from the areas where the plantation has been sited. In
the absence of the plantations it is likely that groundwater recharge would
increase, especially given the sandy textured soil that tends to allow rapid
infiltration and percolation as well as limit moisture delivery to the
atmosphere directly from the soil surface itself. While poplar plantation
growth in this water-limited location might be sustained by the modest
precipitation in the region, it could still be unsustainable for the broader
context of the region's ecosystems and livelihoods. However, further study
to truly access these effects is needed by comparing the surface water
balance and/or spatial and temporal variations of groundwater levels at an
adjacent, similar site without a plantation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>The seasonal drought stress affected the dynamics of individual turbulent
energy fluxes and the surface resistances in the poplar plantation during
the growing seasons. Partitioning of available energy into latent (LE) and
sensible heat (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux responded to meteorological drought and resulted in
higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in dry years (1.57) than in wet years (0.83). Similar
to the response of the Bowen ratio on drought conditions, the LAI normalized
surface resistance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:LAI) was 33 % higher in dry than in wet years.
Correspondingly, the contrasting effects of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the Bowen
ratio were stronger in dry years than in wet years, while the effect of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was stronger in wet years. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was the major factor in controlling
energy partitioning during the growing season, as indicated by the
relatively low decoupling coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values. Furthermore, the
low LE <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LE<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (&lt; 1) of poplar plantations was an indication of the
permanent limitation of plant water use and surface energy partitioning by
water availability. Even at mean long-term precipitation, the water demands
of poplar plantations may consume nearly all of it and leave little for
run-off and groundwater recharge in this semiarid region, potentially
compromising the region's ecosystems and livelihoods.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was financially supported by the National Special Research
Program for Forestry, entitled “Forest Management Affecting the Coupling of
Ecosystem Carbon and Water Exchange with Atmosphere” (grant no. 201204102).
The first author also thanks the financial support of the Beijing Municipality
Educational Committee under the graduate student training program. Partial
support by the US–China Carbon Consortium (USCCC) is acknowledged as well.
Authors thank Dr. Christopher A. Williams (Associate Editor) and anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments which helped to improve our original
manuscript greatly.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: C. A. Williams</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Admiral, S. W., Lafleur, P. M., and Roulet, N. T.: Controls on latent heat
flux and energy partitioning at a peat bog in eastern Canada, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 140, 308–321, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Arain, M. A., Black, T. A., Barr, A. G., Griffis, T. J., Morgenstern, K.,
and Nesic, Z.: Year-round observations of the energy and water vapour fluxes
above a boreal black spruce forest, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3581–3600, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bagayoko, F., Yonkeu, S., Elbers, J., and de Giesen, N. V.: Energy
partitioning over the west African savanna: Multi-year evaporation and
surface conductance measurements in Eastern Burkina Faso, J. Hydrol., 334,
545–559, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Baldocchi, D., Kelliher, F. M., Black, T. A., and Jarvis, P.: Climate and
vegetation controls on boreal zone energy exchange, Glob. Change Biol., 6,
69–83, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Blanken, P. D., Black, T. A., Yang, P. C., Neumann, H. H., Nesic, Z.,
Staebler, R., den Hartog, G., Novak, M. D., and Lee, X.: Energy balance and
canopy conductance of a boreal aspen forest: Partitioning overstory and
understory components, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102,
28915–28927, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bracho, R., Powell, T. L., Dore, S., Li, J. H., Hinkle, C. R., and Drake, B.
G.: Environmental and biological controls on water and energy exchange in
Florida scrub oak and pine flatwoods ecosystems, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113,
G02004, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000469" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JG000469</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Burba, G. G., McDermitt, D. K., Grelle, A., Anderson, D. J., and Xu, L.:
Addressing the influence of instrument surface heat exchange on the
measurements of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux from open-path gas analyzers, Glob. Change Biol.,
14, 1854–1876, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Cabral, O. M. R., Rocha, H. R., Gash, J. H. C., Ligo, M. A. V., Freitas, H.
C., and Tatsch, J. D.: The energy and water balance of a Eucalyptus
plantation in southeast Brazil, J. Hydrol., 388, 208–216, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, R., Kang, E., Zhang, Z., Zhao, W., Song, K., Zhang, J., and Lan, Y.:
Estimation of tree transpiration and response of tree conductance to
meteorological variables in desert-oasis system of Northwest China, Sci. China Ser. D, 47, 9–20, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, S. P., Chen, J. Q., Lin, G. H., Zhang, W. L., Miao, H. X., Wei, L.,
Huang, J. H., and Han, X. G.: Energy balance and partition in Inner Mongolia
steppe ecosystems with different land use types, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 149,
1800–1809, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cho, J., Oki, T., Yeh, P. J. F., Kim, W., Kanae, S., and Otsuki, K.: On the
relationship between the Bowen ratio and the near-surface air temperature,
Theor. Appl. Climatol., 108, 135–145, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Costa, M. H., Biajoli, M. C., Sanches, L., Malhado, A. C. M., Hutyra, L. R.,
da Rocha, H. R., Aguiar, R. G., and de Araujo, A. C.: Atmospheric versus
vegetation controls of Amazonian tropical rain forest evapotranspiration:
Are the wet and seasonally dry rain forests any different?, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 115, G04021, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001179" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JG001179</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Ding, Y. H., Ren, G. Y., Zhao, Z. C., Xu, Y., Luo, Y., Li, Q. P., and Zhang,
J.: Detection, causes and projection of climate change over China: An
overview of recent progress, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 24, 954–971, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Dou, J. X., Zhang, Y. P., Yu, G. R., Zhao, S. J., Wang, X., and Song, Q. H.:
A preliminary study on the heat storage fluxes of a tropical seasonal rain
forest in Xishuangbanna, Sci. China Ser. D, 49, 163–173, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Falge, E., Baldocchi, D., Olson, R., Anthoni, P., Aubinet, M., Bernhofer,
C., Burba, G., Ceulemans, R., Clement, R., Dolman, H., Granier, A., Gross,
P., Grünwald, T., Hollinger, D., Jensen, N.-O., Katul, G., Keronen, P.,
Kowalski, A., Lai, C. T., Law, B. E., Meyers, T., Moncrieff, J., Moors, E.,
Munger, J. W., Pilegaard, K., Rannik, Ü., Rebmann, C., Suyker, A.,
Tenhunen, J., Tu, K., Verma, S., Vesala, T., Wilson, K., and Wofsy, S.: Gap
filling strategies for defensible annual sums of net ecosystem exchange, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 107, 43–69, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Fang, S.: Silviculture of poplar plantation in China: A review, Yingyong
Shengtai Xuebao, 19, 2308–2316, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Fernández, M. E., Gyenge, J., and Schlichter, T.: Water flux and canopy
conductance of natural versus planted forests in Patagonia, South America,
Trees, 23, 415–427, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Foken, T. and Wichura, B.: Tools for quality assessment of surface-based
flux measurements, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 78, 83–105, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Gao, Y., Zhu, X., Yu, G., He, N., Wang, Q., and Tian, J.: Water use
efficiency threshold for terrestrial ecosystem carbon sequestration in China
under afforestation, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 195–196, 32–37, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Gielen, B. and Ceulemans, R.: The likely impact of rising atmospheric CO2 on
natural and managed Populus: a literature review, Environ. Pollut., 115,
335–358, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Goldstein, A. H., Hultman, N. E., Fracheboud, J. M., Bauer, M. R., Panek, J.
A., Xu, M., Qi, Y., Guenther, A. B., and Baugh, W.: Effects of climate
variability on the carbon dioxide, water, and sensible heat fluxes above a
ponderosa pine plantation in the Sierra Nevada (CA), Agr. Forest Meteorol.,
101, 113–129, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Goulden, M. L., Munger, J. W., Fan, S.-M., Daube, B. C., and Wofsy, S. C.:
Measurements of carbon sequestration by long-term eddy covariance: methods
and a critical evaluation of accuracy, Glob. Change Biol., 2, 169–182, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Granier, A., Reichstein, M., Breda, N., Janssens, I. A., Falge, E., Ciais,
P., Grunwald, T., Aubinet, M., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Buchmann, N.,
Facini, O., Grassi, G., Heinesch, B., Ilvesniemi, H., Keronen, P., Knohl,
A., Kostner, B., Lagergren, F., Lindroth, A., Longdoz, B., Loustau, D.,
Mateus, J., Montagnani, L., Nys, C., Moors, E., Papale, D., Peiffer, M.,
Pilegaard, K., Pita, G., Pumpanen, J., Rambal, S., Rebmann, C., Rodrigues,
A., Seufert, G., Tenhunen, J., Vesala, I., and Wang, Q.: Evidence for soil
water control on carbon and water dynamics in European forests during the
extremely dry year: 2003, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 143, 123–145, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Grünwald, T. and Bernhofer, C.: A decade of carbon, water and energy
flux measurements of an old spruce forest at the Anchor Station Tharandt,
Tellus B, 59, 387–396, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Guo, H. Q., Zhao, B., Chen, J. Q., Yan, Y. E., Li, B., and Chen, J. K.:
Seasonal Changes of Energy Fluxes in an Estuarine Wetland of Shanghai,
China, Chinese Geogr. Sci., 20, 23–29, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Guo, L., Li, Q., Yan, C., Mei, X., and Li, Y.: Effects of small area
irrigation on water and heat transport of winter wheat field under drought
condition[J], Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural
Engineering, 24, 20–24, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Hernandez-Ramirez, G., Hatfield, J. L., Prueger, J. H., and Sauer, T. J.:
Energy balance and turbulent flux partitioning in a corn-soybean rotation in
the Midwestern US, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 100, 79–92, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Holwerda, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Scatena, F. N., Vugts, H. F., and Meesters,
A. G. C. A.: Wet canopy evaporation from a Puerto Rican lower montane rain
forest: The importance of realistically estimated aerodynamic conductance, J. Hydrol., 414, 1–15, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Hossen, M. S., Mano, M., Miyata, A., Baten, M. A., and Hiyama, T.: Surface
energy partitioning and evapotranspiration over a double-cropping paddy
field in Bangladesh, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1311–1320, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8232" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.8232</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Humphreys, E. R., Black, T. A., Ethier, G. J., Drewitt, G. B., Spittlehouse,
D. L., Jork, E. M., Nesic, Z., and Livingston, N. J.: Annual and seasonal
variability of sensible and latent heat fluxes above a coastal Douglas-fir
forest, British Columbia, Canada, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 115, 109–125, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Jamiyansharav, K., Ojima, D., Pielke, R. A., Parton, W., Morgan, J.,
Beltrán-Przekurat, A., LeCain, D., and Smith, D.: Seasonal and
interannual variability in surface energy partitioning and vegetation cover
with grazing at shortgrass steppe, J. Arid. Environ., 75, 360–370, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Jarvis, P. G. and McNaughton, K. G.: Stomatal Control of Transpiration:
Scaling Up from Leaf to Region, in: Advances in Ecological Research, edited
by: MacFadyen, A. and Ford, E. D., Academic Press, London NW1 7BY, UK,
1–49,
1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-S., Oren, R., and Hinckley, T. M.: Actual and potential
transpiration and carbon assimilation in an irrigated poplar plantation,
Tree Physiol., 28, 559–577, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Komatsu, H.: Forest categorization according to dry-canopy evaporation rates
in the growing season: comparison of the Priestley–Taylor coefficient
values from various observation sites, Hydrol. Process., 19, 3873–3896, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Kumagai, T. o., Saitoh, T. M., Sato, Y., Morooka, T., Manfroi, O. J.,
Kuraji, K., and Suzuki, M.: Transpiration, canopy conductance and the
decoupling coefficient of a lowland mixed dipterocarp forest in Sarawak,
Borneo: dry spell effects, J. Hydrol., 287, 237–251, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Kutsch, W. L., Hanan, N., Scholes, B., McHugh, I., Kubheka, W., Eckhardt, H.,
and Williams, C.: Response of carbon fluxes to water relations in a savanna ecosystem in
South Africa, Biogeosciences, 5, 1797–1808, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-5-1797-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-5-1797-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Launiainen, S.: Seasonal and inter-annual variability of energy exchange above a
boreal Scots pine forest, Biogeosciences, 7, 3921–3940, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-3921-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-7-3921-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Li, S., Tong, L., Li, F. S., Zhang, L., Zhang, B. Z., and Kang, S. Z.:
Variability in energy partitioning and resistance parameters for a vineyard
in northwest China, Agr. Water Manage., 96, 955–962, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Y. Z., Qin, H. Y., Xie, Y. H., Wang, W., Chen, X. S., and Zhang, C. M.:
Physiological mechanism for the reduction in soil water in poplar (Populus
deltoides) plantations in Dongting Lake wetlands, Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 22,
25–33, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Z., Yu, G., Wen, X., Zhang, L., Ren, C., and Fu, Y.: Energy balance
closure at ChinaFLUX sites, Sci. China Ser. D, 48, 12, 51–62, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Z., Niu, L., Yuan, F., Guan, D., Wang, A., Jin, C., and Wu, J.: Canopy
conductance characteristics of poplar in agroforestry system in west
Liaoning Province of Northeast China, Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,
23, 2975–2982, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Mahrt, L.: Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layers, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 90,
375–396, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Martín-García, J., Jactel, H., and Diez, J. J.: Patterns and
monitoring of Sesia apiformis infestations in poplar plantations at
different spatial scales, J. Appl. Entomol., 135, 382–392, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Migliavacca, M., Meroni, M., Manca, G., Matteucci, G., Montagnani, L.,
Grassi, G., Zenone, T., Teobaldelli, M., Goded, I., Colombo, R., and
Seufert, G.: Seasonal and interannual patterns of carbon and water fluxes of
a poplar plantation under peculiar eco-climatic conditions, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 149, 1460–1476, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Monteith, J.: A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity, Plant Cell Environ., 18, 357–364, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Motzer, T., Munz, N., Küppers, M., Schmitt, D., and Anhuf, D.: Stomatal
conductance, transpiration and sap flow of tropical montane rain forest
trees in the southern Ecuadorian Andes, Tree Physiol., 25, 1283–1293, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Nakai, T., Van Der Molen, M., Gash, J., and Kodama, Y.: Correction of sonic
anemometer angle of attack errors, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 136, 19–30, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Noormets, A., McNulty, S. G., DeForest, J. L., Sun, G., Li, Q., and Chen,
J.: Drought during canopy development has lasting effect on annual carbon
balance in a deciduous temperate forest, New Phytol., 179, 818–828, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Noormets, A., Zhou, R., Chen, J., and Billesbach, D.: EC_Processor page <uri>http://www4.ncsu.edu/~anoorme/ECP/index.html</uri> (last access: 20 September 2014), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Ozdogan, M., Rodell, M., Beaudoing, H. K., and Toll, D. L.: Simulating the
Effects of Irrigation over the United States in a Land Surface Model Based
on Satellite-Derived Agricultural Data, J. Hydrometeorol., 11, 171–184, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Paw U, K. T., Baldocchi, D. D., Meyers, T. P., and Wilson, K. B.: Correction
Of Eddy-Covariance Measurements Incorporating Both Advective Effects And
Density Fluxes, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 97, 487–511, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Pereira, A. R.: The Priestley–Taylor parameter and the decoupling factor
for estimating reference evapotranspiration, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 125,
305–313, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Perez, P. J., Castellvi, F., and Martínez-Cob, A.: A simple model for
estimating the Bowen ratio from climatic factors for determining latent and
sensible heat flux, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 148, 25–37, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, R., Schwarzel, K., and Feger, K. H.: Transpiration of a hybrid
poplar plantation in Saxony (Germany) in response to climate and soil
conditions, Eur. J. Forest Res., 130, 695–706, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Qiu, G., Yin, J., and Geng, S.: Impact of Climate and Land-Use Changes on
Water Security for Agriculture in Northern China, Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 11, 144–150, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Raupach, M.: Equilibrium evaporation and the convective boundary layer,
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 96, 107–142, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Schmid, H. P., Su, H. B., Vogel, C. S., and Curtis, P. S.:
Ecosystem-atmosphere exchange of carbon dioxide over a mixed hardwood forest
in northern lower Michigan, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 19 pp., 4417, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD003011</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Standardization Administration, P. R. China: Classification of meteorological
drought,
in: National Standard of People's Republic of China GB/T 20481-2006, China
Standard Press, Beijing, 1–16, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Stanturf, J. A. and Oosten, C. v.: Operational Poplar and Willow Culture.
In: Poplars and willows: trees for society and the environment, edited by: Isebrands,
J. G. and Richardson, J., The Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations and CABI, available at: <uri>http://www.fao.org/forestry/ipc/69946@158687/en/</uri> (last access: 03 April
2015), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Stoy, P. C., Mauder, M., Foken, T., Marcolla, B., Boegh, E., Ibrom, A.,
Arain, M. A., Arneth, A., Aurela, M., Bernhofer, C., Cescatti, A., Dellwik,
E., Duce, P., Gianelle, D., van Gorsel, E., Kiely, G., Knohl, A., Margolis,
H., McCaughey, H., Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Papale, D., Reichstein, M.,
Saunders, M., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sottocornola, M., Spano, D., Vaccari, F.,
and Varlagin, A.: A data-driven analysis of energy balance closure across
FLUXNET research sites: The role of landscape scale heterogeneity, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 171–172, 137–152, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Sun, G., Noormets, A., Gavazzi, M., McNulty, S., Chen, J., Domec, J.-C.,
King, J., Amatya, D., and Skaggs, R.: Energy and water balance of two
contrasting loblolly pine plantations on the lower coastal plain of North
Carolina, USA, Forest Ecol. Manag., 259, 1299–1310, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Takagi, K., Kimura, R., and Şaylan, L.: Variability of surface
characteristics and energy flux patterns of sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.)
under well-watered conditions, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 96, 261–273, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Tang, Y., Wen, X., Sun, X., and Wang, H.: Interannual Variation of the Bowen
Ratio in a Subtropical Coniferous Plantation in Southeast China, 2003–2012,
Plos One, 9, e88267, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088267" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0088267</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Tchebakova, N. M., Kolle, O., Zolotoukhine, D., Arneth, A., Styles, J. M.,
Vygodskaya, N. N., Schluze, E.-D., Shibistova, O., and Lloyd, J.:
Inter-annual and seasonal variations of energy and water vapour fluxes above
a  Pinus sylvestris forest in the Siberian middle taiga, Tellus B, 54,
537–551, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, E., Yu, Q., Wu, D., and Xia, J.: Climate, agricultural production and
hydrological balance in the North China Plain, Int. J. Climatol., 28,
1959–1970, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Webb, E. K., Pearman, G. I., and Leuning, R.: Correction of flux
measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 106, 85–100, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Wilczak, J., Oncley, S., and Stage, S.: Sonic Anemometer Tilt Correction
Algorithms, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 99, 127–150, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Wilske, B., Lu, N., Wei, L., Chen, S. P., Zha, T. G., Liu, C. F., Xu, W. T.,
Noormets, A., Huang, J. H., Wei, Y. F., Chen, J., Zhang, Z. Q., Ni, J., Sun,
G., Guo, K., McNulty, S., John, R., Han, X. G., Lin, G. H., and Chen, J. Q.:
Poplar plantation has the potential to alter the water balance in semiarid
Inner Mongolia, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 2762–2770, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, K. B. and Baldocchi, D. D.: Seasonal and interannual variability of
energy fluxes over a broadleaved temperate deciduous forest in North
America, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 100, 1–18, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, K. B., Goldstein, A., Falge, E., Aubinet, M., Baldocchi, D., Berbigier,
P., Bernhofer, C., Ceulemans, R., Dolman, H., Field, C., Grelle, A., Ibrom,
A., Law, B. E., Kowalski, A., Meyers, T., Moncrieff, J., Monson, R., Oechel,
W., Tenhunen, J., Valentini, R., and Verma, S.: Energy balance closure at
FLUXNET sites, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 113, 223–243, 2002a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Wilson, K. B., Baldocchi, D. D., Aubinet, M., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C.,
Dolman, H., Falge, E., Field, C., Goldstein, A., Granier, A., Grelle, A.,
Halldor, T., Hollinger, D., Katul, G., Law, B. E., Lindroth, A., Meyers, T.,
Moncrieff, J., Monson, R., Oechel, W., Tenhunen, J., Valentini, R., Verma,
S., Vesala, T., and Wofsy, S.: Energy partitioning between latent and
sensible heat flux during the warm season at FLUXNET sites, Water Resour. Res., 38, 30-1–30-11, 1294, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000989" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR000989</ext-link>, 2002b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, J. B., Guan, D. X., Han, S. J., Shi, T. L., Jin, C. J., Pell, T. F., and
Yu, G. R.: Energy budget above a temperate mixed forest in northeastern
China, Hydrol. Process., 21, 2425–2434, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Zha, T. S., Li, C. Y., Kellomaki, S., Peltola, H., Wang, K. Y., and Zhang,
Y. Q.: Controls of Evapotranspiration and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> Fluxes from Scots Pine by
Surface Conductance and Abiotic Factors, Plos One, 8, e69027, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0069027</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, J. B., Shangguan, T., and Meng, Z. Q.: Changes in soil carbon flux
and carbon stock over a rotation of poplar plantations in northwest China,
Ecol. Res., 26, 153–161, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Y., Kadota, T., Ohata, T., and Oyunbaatar, D.: Environmental controls
on evapotranspiration from sparse grassland in Mongolia, Hydrol. Process., 21,
2016–2027, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, Q., Guo, W., Ling, X., Liu, Y., Wang, G., and Xie, J.: Analysis of
Evapotranspiration and Water Budget for Various Land Use in Semi-Arid Areas
of Tongyu, China, Clim. Environ. Res., 18, 415–426, 2013 (in
Chinese).
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, J., Zhang, Z., Sun, G., Fang, X., Zha, T., McNulty, S., Chen, J., Jin,
Y., and Noormets, A.: Response of ecosystem carbon fluxes to drought events
in a poplar plantation in Northern China, Forest Ecol. Manag., 300, 33–42,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, L., Zhou, G. S., Liu, S. H., and Sui, X. H.: Seasonal contribution and
interannual variation of evapotranspiration over a reed marsh (Phragmites
australis) in Northeast China from 3-year eddy covariance data, Hydrol. Process., 24, 1039–1047, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, G., Lu, L., Su, Y., Wang, X., Cui, X., Ma, J., He, J., Zhang, K., and
Li, C.: Energy flux partitioning and evapotranspiration in a sub-alpine
spruce forest ecosystem, Hydrol. Process., 28, 5093–5104, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
