Climate model shows increased flash droughts in water-limited areas due to CO2 fertilization effects, indicating significant vegetation impacts.
Vegetation plays a crucial role in soil moisture regulation and the development of rapid‐onset droughts known as flash droughts. We use climate model experiments with the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) to examine how the vegetation response to rising CO 2 impacts projections of future flash drought in the Northern Hemisphere mid‐latitudes. By isolating the influences of CO 2 fertilization and CO 2 stomatal conductance effects from CO 2 radiative forcing, we find that: (a) CO 2 ‐induced changes to plant characteristics are of sufficient magnitude to modify flash drought characteristics, (b) CO 2 fertilization effects counteract the CO 2 stomatal conductance effects on projected flash drought occurrence, and (c) the combined influence of the vegetation response to rising CO 2 can either amplify or counteract CO 2 radiative‐driven flash drought changes depending on location. In water‐limited regions such as the western United States, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, and west/central Asia where CO 2 fertilization dominates and surface vegetation strongly controls water availability, elevated leaf area offsets reductions in stomatal conductance and transpiration, increasing the likelihood of future flash droughts. Vegetation‐driven increases in flash drought in these areas are generally aligned in sign with projected increases due to radiative forcing. Conversely, in more energy limited regions such as western Canada, East Asia, and parts of Europe, preserved soil moisture from reduced stomatal conductance and transpiration suppresses flash droughts despite increased leaf area from CO 2 fertilization. These reductions in flash drought from vegetation counteract radiative‐driven increases. This study elucidates physical processes underlying projected flash drought development, improving predictive capabilities and mitigation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fallah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: