It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Given their ability to provide food, raw material and alleviate poverty, oil palm (OP) plantations are driving significant losses of biodiversity-rich tropical forests, fuelling a heated debate on ecosystem degradation and conservation. However, while OP-induced carbon emissions and biodiversity losses have received significant attention, OP water requirements have been marginalized and little is known on the ecohydrological changes (water and surface energy fluxes) occurring from forest clearing to plantation maturity. Numerical simulations supported by field observations from seven sites in Southeast Asia (five OP plantations and two tropical forests) are used here to illustrate the temporal evolution of OP actual evapotranspiration (ET), infiltration/runoff, gross primary productivity (GPP) and surface temperature as well as their changes relative to tropical forests. Model results from large-scale commercial plantations show that young OP plantations decrease ecosystem ET, causing hotter and drier climatic conditions, but mature plantations (age > 8−9 yr) have higher GPP and transpire more water (up to +7.7%) than the forests they have replaced. This is the result of physiological constraints on water use efficiency and the extremely high yield of OP (six to ten times higher than other oil crops). Hence, the land use efficiency of mature OP, i.e. the high productivity per unit of land area, comes at the expense of water consumption in a trade of water for carbon that may jeopardize local water resources. Sequential replanting and herbaceous ground cover can reduce the severity of such ecohydrological changes and support local water/climate regulation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
2 Bioclimatology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Department of Ecology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
3 CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
4 Bioclimatology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
5 Graduate school agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
6 Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
7 Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland