Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Interactions between Forest Cover and Watershed Hydrology: A State-of-the-Art Review

Altmetrics

Downloads

145

Views

103

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

02 September 2024

Posted:

03 September 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The role of trees in watershed hydrology is governed by many environmental factors along with their inherent characteristics and not surprisingly has generated into diverse debates in the literature. Herein, this state-of-the-art review provides an opportunity to propose a conceptual model for understanding the role of trees in watershed hydrology and examine the conditions under which they can be an element that increases or decreases water supply in a watershed hydrology. To achieve this goal, this review addressed the interaction of forest cover with climatic conditions, soil types, infiltration, siltation and erosion, water availability, and the diversity of their ecological features. The novelty of the proposed conceptual model highlights that tree species and densities, climate, precipitation, type of aquifer, and topography are important factors affecting the relationships between trees and water availability. This suggests that forests can be used as a nature-based solution for conserving and managing natural resources, including water, soil and air. To sum up, forests can reduce people’s imprint, thanks to their role in improving water and air quality, conserving soil, and other ecosystem services. The outcomes of this study should be valuable for decision-makers when investing in reforestation in a watershed hydrology.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Environmental Science

1. Introduction

Forests cover about one-third of the Earth terrestrial area [1] and play a crucial role in environmental sustainability and human life. They significantly contribute to climate change mitigation by absorbing and storing 30% of carbon emissions [2], reducing greenhouse gas emissions [3], providing food to people [4], and offering several ecosystem services, including water provision, soil conservation, and climate regulation. Forests could positively or negatively affect water storage (i.e., soil water availability) by regulating basic fluxes such as infiltration, and surface runoff, and evapotranspiration (ET). Natural forests have been exploited [5] and destroyed for agricultural activities, one of the main contributors to soil erosion. From 2000 to 2012, approximately 3.2% of forest cover worldwide was converted into agricultural lands [6]. This conversion could affect soil water availability (SWA). However, the relationships between trees and basic features of the hydrologic cycle (storage and fluxes of water) are complex and contradictory. For example, a scientific paper has argued that deforestation could increase downstream water availability, whereas others have concluded that afforestation increases downstream water availability and intensifies the water cycle [7]. Other researchers have documented that afforestation decreases water yields, especially trees such as eucalyptus and pinus [8,9,10,11,12].
Trees are fundamentally important in regulating streamflow [13]. However, some species can reduce groundwater levels because of climate changes and physiological characteristics that may affect ET [14]. The transpiration of some trees (e.g., Phyllostachys edulis) can be affected by multiple factors such as tree age, size, phenological stages, and soil water content [15,16,17]. Thus, tree transpiration can couple with environmental variables to alter the water cycle and water balance on local and regional scales. To meet transpiration needs [18], trees with deep root systems can extract large volumes of water from depths of 10 meters or more [19]. On this topic, researchers have argued that there is an interdependence between vegetation and deep groundwater [20,21,22]. There is a great need to clarify controversies about the relationship between watershed hydrology, and ultimately the global water cycle. As such, we expect that trees reduce soil erosion, compaction and surface runoff during precipitation. Besides, the change in the hydrological cycle, particularly in extreme precipitation, can intensify negatively with global warming [23,24]. Likewise, global warming can directly influence precipitation, leading to a greater evaporation rate and thus surface drying [25]. Similarly, changes in climatological precipitation and evapotranspiration lead to changes in runoff [26].
A conceptual model should consider how tree communities in forested areas can affect the amount of water in the soil and at a watershed outlet, and their role in controlling erosion and reducing runoff. This model also should consider the impacts of fast-growing forest plantations on the water balance and streamflow compared to those of native forests. Various studies have documented large-scale relationships between hydrological effects and deforestation, forestation [27,28,29,30]. Others have demonstrated relationships between water cycle components (e.g., precipitation and evapotranspiration) and water vapor residence time [31], and forest maturity [32]. For example, to meet their evapotranspiration need, trees use various strategies for searching water in a forested watershed, preferring soil water rather than groundwater [33], depending on the period; for example, they could uptake groundwater during dry periods. Regardless of the source, trees affect the partitioning of water between catchment water yield and ET [34,35]. In the end, water extraction and availability are governed by interactions between macropore flow, matrix storage, and shape of root systems [36] and ultimately these interactions define the ecohydrological functioning of forests [37].
Notably, there is a direct relationship between transpiration and diel fluctuations in streamflow [37], which vary seasonally and spatially [38]. Nonetheless, there is a need for improving the understanding of the interactions between forest cover and watershed hydrology. Hence, the objective behind this state-of-the-art review is to document the influence of trees on water availability and propose a conceptual model of their role in watershed hydrology and the conditions in under which they can increase or decrease water supply. Therefore, after the introduction section, this paper proceeds as follows: (i) Methodology; (ii) origin of precipitation; (iii) conceptual model of the role of trees in watershed hydrology; (iv) relationships between forests, runoff, and soil erosion control; (v) effects of forests on watershed hydrology at various spatial scales; (vi) relationships between tree species and SWA; and (vii) conclusions and future research.

2. Materials and Methods

This state-of-the art review proposed a conceptual model for understanding the role of trees in watershed hydrology and examined the conditions under which they can influence water supply in a watershed hydrology. Scientific documents were searched from literature databases (e.g., Scopus, google scholar and Web of Science) using keywords, including “forest cover”, “planting trees”, “trees”, “water protection”, “water availability”, “infiltration”, “reduce runoff”, “watershed”, “rainforest”, “climate”, “soil compositions”, “evapotranspiration”, “vegetation”, hydrologic cycle”, “topography”, “forest age”, “base flow”, “watershed”. It is noted that Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were used to associate the aforementioned keywords and thus refine the search results. This review focused on English documents (e.g., papers, reports and books) published from 1933 to 2023. The list of references was also used to search for additional published documents. After screening the titles, abstracts, and conclusions, more than 206 documents were selected for inclusion in this state-of-the-art review. Information was extracted from these documents and analyzed by searching for relationships between the keywords used and, at least, one of the watershed hydrology components (e.g., runoff, infiltration) targeted in this review relating to water availability. Finally, data was managed using EndNote to ensure accurate referencing.

3. Origine of Precipitation

Numerical studies have illustrated that precipitation is recycled over a long distance through trees evapotranspiration that drives winds and moist air transport [31,39,40]. Of note, 90% of water evaporated every year precipitates back onto oceans, and the remaining 10% feeds the land branch of the water cycle [39]. The major sources of moisture have their origins in large regions characterized by vertically integrated moisture flux divergence [41]. The North and South Atlantic sources are globally the first and second largest sources of moisture for precipitation over the continents, respectively [39]. The numerical study detailed and highlighted how moisture is formed under the effect latent heat fluxes over the ocean and subsequently transport in the atmosphere before reaching the soil surface in the form of precipitation [39]. The effect of orography is a factor that is susceptible to limiting the moisture from the ocean and thus reducing the oceanic contribution in terms of precipitation. Notably, there are other sources (e.g., land evaporation) of precipitation. For example, a previous study pointed out that land evaporation provides 40% of terrestrial precipitation, of which 57% is back on land in the form of precipitation [42]. It worth noting that terrestrial precipitation, evaporation recycling, and moisture exportation mainly occur over the continents [43]. A decline in precipitation may be linked to deforestation [44]. Of note, moisture recycling is strongly associated with forests expansion. Thus, the larger the expansion, the larger the moisture recycling. Water is precipitated on large regions either by advection from the surrounding areas external to the region and evaporation, or transpiration from the land surface of the region [45]. Notably, precipitation recycling in forests significantly influences the isotopic composition of precipitation in northwestern Amazonia [46].

4. Conceptual Model of the Role of Trees in Watershed Hydrology

4.1. Soil Characteristics and Water Infiltration

Some trees reduce water on rocky substrates (saprolite, fractured bedrock), particularly when the source is deep below ground, using around 49% for transpiration during dry seasons and 28% during wet seasons [47]. Trees that grow in less favorable soil/subsoil conditions consume deepwater reserves due to root adaptation to enhance drought tolerance [48]. The hydrologic response to drought can be either mitigated or exacerbated by forest vegetation, depending mainly on the amount of water used by vegetation and the response of forest population [38]. In a restoration project, clayey soils recovered infiltration faster than sandy soils [49,50]. This could occur because the aggregating forces in sandy soils are weaker than those in clayey soils. Thus, high soil aggregation is one of the characteristics that can explain and justify high infiltration, which can greatly depend on the historicity of a targeted area.
Reforestation in the tropics and subtropics may improve water infiltration, depending on land use, soil texture, and local climate [49]. It is noted that reforestation should regulate water fluxes [51] through infiltration and ET [52] depending on soil properties, which are influenced by a set of factors such as slope/topography [53,54,55], climate, parent material, time, and living organisms [56]. Reducing soil organic matter content can adversely affect root penetration, thus reducing water infiltration and compromising the role of trees in mitigating erosion. Also, infiltration time would diminish independently of the rainfall’s intensity and duration in a mechanically terraced area. The compaction reduces soil infiltration and root penetration. Substrates controlled by regolith and rocks impose drought conditions on oak forest stands [57]. Such soil reduces water infiltration, which drives surface runoff, soil erosion, chemical transfer routes, water quality, and irrigation uniformity [58]. Depending on the size of rock fragments and their aggregation to the soils, they could favor infiltration or enhance soil loss [59].

4.2. Streamflow versus Base Flow Partitioning

Base flow is correlated with forest extension and is crucial to maintain the water yield of a watershed. There is a correlation between changes in forest ET and riparian water table height and riparian area; and in return this can increase ET loss and modulate streamflow [60]. Meanwhile, forest cover type and annual temperature affect watershed base flow [61]. A decrease in total basal area of pinus trees can lead to an increase in groundwater recharge, cumulative streamflow, and direct runoff [62,63]. These findings indicate that forest is one of the key factors governing base flow in a catchment. Another study corroborates these findings and outlines that high ET reduces stream flows [64]. Besides, changes in forest cover during regeneration modify water flux partitioning [65]. Other variables, including soil composition and climate conditions, may be among possible factors affecting groundwater recharge and base flow. For example, a study explained that precipitation, soil texture, and forest cover modulate groundwater recharge, while vegetation cover and groundwater depth affect base flow [66]. Notably, there is a correlation between rainfall, base flow, and forest area. Therefore, the greater the forest area the more stable are flow conditions [67].

4.3. Evapotranspiration

ET is a key hydrological process, and the only mechanism that supplies water vapor into the atmosphere [68]. It is responsible for the coupling of the land surface energy balance with the terrestrial and atmospheric water balances. The relationships between trees, water availability and water fluxes are linked to hydrologic processes such as groundwater recharge (balance between ET and infiltration) and surface runoff, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Research conducted in Ghana and Southern Burkina Faso reported that ET consumed 72% of the annual precipitation [69]. In the Amazon Basin in Brazil and Peru, the forest canopy can induce significant moisture fluxes between land and atmosphere leading to a precipitation-ET loop [70].

4.4. Soil Water Availability

Soil characteristics such as fractured rock, fracture depth, soil texture, and parental rock interact with vegetation to reduce SWA, which is used here to refer to soil water storage, soil water recharge, rivers, basins, and watershed recharge (Figure 1). Since SWA varies among different substrates and different types of soil (e.g., sand, silt, clay, etc.) and land use land cover, it also influences water quality [71]. Loamy sand sites could have a SWA greater than sandy clay loam or sandy clay [72]. Interactions between trees and soil water can be influenced by natural conditions (e.g., topography and slope) and parent material (i.e., geologic material). In such cases, trees can remove more water from the soil if the parent material mostly comprises organic matter.
In Equations. ((1) and (2)), P is precipitation, Rin is runoff in, Abs is absorption, Rout is runoff out, Inf is water infiltration, Grin is the groundwater in, Grout is the groundwater out, Dp is the deep groundwater, ∆tree canopy is the water mass balance of a tree canopy over time interval ∆t, ∆SWA is water mass balance in the soil at time interval ∆t.
SWA is the sum of water in the unsaturated zone (vadose zone) and the saturated zone (water table). Figure 1 represents conceptual models of water mass balances of a tree canopy and underlying soil matrix. Forest cover is one of the crucial parameters in forest management that alters the accumulation of water in the vadose and saturated zones of the soil [73]. Therefore, modifying natural forests through deforestation may temporarily increase watershed hydrology, directly impacting the annual hydrograph and thus low and peak flows, streamflow regulation, and flood occurrences. These responses occur quite rapidly. The tree canopy water mass balance is the difference between water inputs and outputs (Equation (1)). When water reaches a tree, a part is lost through ET, and another part infiltrates the soil and thus increases SWA. Soil water depletion is the difference between the sum of water inputs (infiltration (Inf) and groundwater in (Grin) and water outputs (groundwater out (Grout), deep groundwater (Dp), and absorption (Abs) (Equation (2)). Water absorption by roots from the soil depend on tree types, climate, and soil physical properties. Of note, SWA depends on vegetation cover, types, and understory composition. A recent study underscored that groundwater is tightly related to soil water [74]. As such, exotic or native trees with a higher ET rate deplete SWA and can compete for water with other trees. Thus, we argue that soil moisture is somehow associated with vegetation types. The reduction of SWA and groundwater can also be associated with albedo and latent heat flux as they are among the mechanisms responsible for these changes [75].

4.4.1. Relationship between Soil Characteristics and SWA

There is a link between soil properties and trees [76] that can cause a change in SWA [77]. For example, trees can uptake more water from loamy soil, soil with higher organic matter content, or sandy soil than rocky soil [72]. This is possible because tree roots have more difficulty reaching groundwater beyond the vadose zone [78]. In such a case, soil porosity should be considered because this property can give a false impression that forests retain water. SWA varies from one site to another, depending on soil textures. For example, capillary and hydraulic barriers enable layered soils to hold more water (presence of perched water tables) than nonlayered ones [79]. Similarly, a previous study documented that SWA varied in the following order: loamy sand > sandy loamy and sandy clay sites [72].
The reduction of soil particle sizes and tree development lead to organic matter accumulation in the topsoil and thus increase the soil water storage [80]. Notably, biological soil crusts play a paramount role in increasing soil porosity and micro-topography, thus, enhancing infiltration while increasing runoff by the secretion of hydrophobic compounds as well as clogging of soil pores upon wetting [81]. Tree-soil-water availability (TSWA) constitutes a complex system in which trees can increase water yield depending on soil composition. In a landscape with a high elevation, moisture could be more favorable to trees because they do not need to uptake water from the deeper soil. This interaction occurs due to the slope angle's control on SWA. In the TSWA system, water yield can be increased or decreased depending on the characteristics of trees, soil saturation, and infiltration capacity.

4.5. Combined Effects of Forests and Local Climate on SWA

There is a synergic effect between forests and local climate on SWA. In this regard, researchers have reported that climate has considerable impacts on water balance components (such as runoff, precipitation, and ET) [82,83,84] and forest cover [85,86]. Several scientists have highlighted that climate and trees govern water availability in vegetated areas [87,88], playing an essential role in regulating water security and supply [89,90], and thus affect drainage and runoff characteristics [91]. Climate change variability is one of the main factors affecting precipitation, hydrological processes, and as the final runoff response. There is an interrelationship between the water cycle and climate change. Notably, evaporation, precipitation, and precipitable water are key components of the water cycle that influence global climate change [68]. Climate change negatively affects the water cycle, freshwater availability, and water security [92,93,94].
In the future, interannual climate variability could be stronger in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and weaker in the Atlantic, while interdecadal climate variability is expected to enhance and reduced warmth in polar and equatorial regions, respectively [95]. These findings highlight that polar and equatorial region are susceptible to receiving longer precipitation periods than the Pacific and Indian Oceans. These findings may also indicate that different climate change scenarios can lead to different patterns of change in the terrestrial water cycle [96]. In watershed areas covered by exotic tree plantations in south-central Chile, increasing and decreasing trends in evaporation and percolation rates were registered because of climate change, respectively [97]. However, a variability of responses may exist, depending on environmental and tree characteristics. For example, large ET is more predominant at high altitudes in the north [98]. It is noted that any change in forest structure can affect climate and vice-versa [44].

4.6. Relationship between Topographic Factors and SWA

Altitude and landscape slopes can determine plants’ behavior, modifying SWA and increasing relative humidity through the ET of unused water in (turgescence) and on (intercepted) leaves. A previous study reported that topographic position and slopes interact together to form a thermal gradient and water stress for trees across the landscapes [99]. At high altitudes, vegetation uptakes water from the deeper unsaturated soils, developing significant variability in water consumption strategies [100]. Other researchers have underscored that landscape topography influences tree growth [101,102] and affects mountain forests through its effects on radiation and moisture [103]. Similarly, another study indicates that soil variation and water loss are important factors of the topographic gradient [104]. Thus, in certain cases, the slope gradient can reduce runoff, reduce soil moisture, and enhance ET, which may be associated with biophysical changes (for instance, deeper roots). That probably reduces the soil water stored [105,106], which, in return, influences infiltration and ET [107], subsurface runoff paths, and erosional processes [108]. The largest average soil moisture values occur on topography with a flat surface configuration [109]. However, the drainage system could reduce the soil moisture in a determined area. An increase in water table depth may lead to a decrease in the role of the topography of the land surface and the spatial distribution of water when the water table is deep and close to the bedrock surface [110].

5. Relationships between Forests and Runoff and Soil Erosion Control

Runoff is another important hydrological process and has various responses to forests at different scales (e.g., large, medium, and small scales). Certain vegetation types are more appropriate for reducing erosion than other trees. Forest, pepper, bush, and intercropping are types of vegetation that can minimize erosion [111]. Afforestation reduces runoff and flood peak discharge and controls soil erosion due increased forest cover, canopy structure and density to protect the soil from direct rainstorms. Notably, reforestation could have both positive (decrease wet season runoff) and negative (increase surface runoff) impacts on runoff [112]. The role of forests in reducing soil loss could vary depending on topography. A study outlined that soil loss varied according to the types of slopes, as soil loss from convex slopes was 1.5 times greater than that from concave and uniform slopes [113]. In addition, forest cover can reduce soil degradation [114], depending on climatic factors and rainfall regime. Along this line of reasoning, another research pointed out that runoff and soil loss were negatively correlated with slope value, organic matter content, tree cover percentage, and soil structural stability [59]. Recent research has indicated that fine roots of apple trees reduce SWA [115]. This reduction may depend on the length and shape of the root system. From a holistic viewpoint, our review corroborates the literature on the relationship between trees, runoff, and soil erosion [116] by demonstrating that trees use their canopy and root systems to reduce erosion. However, when doing a careful analysis, we comprehend that this reduction depends on specific conditions (e.g., tree densities, and local climate) and environmental factors such as slope, length of slope, and soil structural characteristics.

5.1. Runoff Responses to Forest at Multiple Scales

Runoff response can be influenced by various factors, including forest type, soil properties, and watershed scales. The annual runoff response to land cover change may depends on forest type and the size of a watershed. There is a straight correlation between the runoff coefficient and the watershed scale, where runoff coefficients may reduce as watershed areas increase. Runoff coefficients depend on both shape and size of a watershed [117]. Moreover, the type of land cover is a crucial factor affecting the hydrological response of a watershed, and the runoff coefficients to peak flow relationships vary from year to year [118].

5.2. Factors Affecting the Surface Runoff

Surface runoff, or overland flow is generated within a watershed and can be explained by one of two scenarios: (i) the precipitation rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil column, or (ii) the water table reaches the soil surface [18,119]. The first process, called “Hortonian”, occurs under high rainfall intensities [120], while the second mechanism, called “Dunne”, happens under low precipitation intensity with shallow water tables [121]. Surface runoff can be influenced by a set of factors, such as vertical vegetation structure, vegetation distribution pattern, and plant diversity [122]. Admittedly, vegetation can reduce runoff [123], intercept rainfall [124], and drain stormwater [125].
Plantation type and age can impact runoff and hydrologic processes. For example, Mature plantations rather than young plantations can have a direct impact on soil erosion and runoff [126]. Another study showed that afforestation with pinus led to a higher runoff reduction than afforestation with eucalyptus in high-rainfall areas [127]. Converting natural forests to plantation forests reduces the total amount of runoff [128]. Along the same line of reasoning, they did not recommend afforestation in countries with little precipitation because mature forests reduce the amount of runoff [128]. However, old trees may not contribute much to erosion control. Contrary to young trees, unused water in mature forests evaporates and then contributes to air moisture, which can lead to precipitation and, thus, replenish groundwater.

6. Effect of Forests on Watershed Hydrology at Various Spatial Scales

The effect of forests on watershed hydrology varies in time and space. For example, at a large spatial scale, forest restoration can enhance precipitation recycling due to atmospheric drawbacks [7,129]. Large-scale deforestation can have a detrimental effect on watershed hydrology. A study documented that the average terrestrial water storage and runoff dynamics in the Amazon Forest are approximately ten times more significant in deforested areas than in forested areas [130]. On the one hand, studies have pointed out that in some regions of the world, large-scale forest restoration can result in higher water yields [131,132] and thus intensify watershed hydrology [133]. On the other hand, Filoso et al. underscored that it does not necessarily increase water yields [134]. These findings suggest that the interaction between forests and hydrological processes varies in time and space [135]. At smaller scale, little insights were found in the literature about the interaction between reforestation/afforestation and precipitation and thus, it is difficult to postulate that small-scale forest expansions can generate enough moisture recycling to increase rainfall.

7. Relationships between Tree Species and SWA

7.1. Fast-Growing/Commercial Trees

Certain fast-growing trees, such as Eucalyptus globulus and E. grandis urophylla, Larix principis-rupprechtii and Pinus radiata, reduce water availability in the soil [12,128,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145] and soil erosion while increasing infiltration and ET [146], as shown in Figure 2b. This occurs during both their growth stage and their adult stage. Industrial eucalyptus overuses stored water when planted in sandy soils [147], and their roots can reach water table depth of 12 meters after only two years [148]. In such cases, commercial trees function as natural drains, lowering the water table and enhancing local evapotranspiration, a practice known as biodrainage.
A recent study showed that multiple decades of forest operation reduced deep soil moisture reservoirs, illustrating that when Radiata pinus trees are replaced by eucalyptus subsurface supply to streamflow substantially decreased under dry period conditions [149]. Similarly, Pinus halepensis increases water use [150] and, thus, reduces the amount of moisture stored in the soil [151]. Admittedly, these fast-growing tree (monocultures trees) plantations generally transpire more than slow growing forests due to their high interception loss [152].
Fast-growing forests have growth and ET rates higher than native forests (Figure 2a). During their growth, they reduce SWA through their root systems, which can reach the groundwater level in a short period. This finding indicates that forest types have a crucial role in water yield because of their different ET magnitudes [153]. This finding may also show that native species are more adapted to water stress than non-native trees [134]. The negative impact of fast-growing forests on water yield is only for a short time because they are generally cut at their youngest age for commercial purposes. Fast-growing forests are unsuitable for afforestation in areas with medium precipitation and brackish groundwater [154], and their photosynthetic rates and stomatal conductance are higher than those of slow-growing forests [155]. This indicates a relationship between the type and age of trees and SWA. Research findings in South Africa indicated that over a 5-year period of afforestation with pinus reduced the annual streamflow yield by 44 mm/a for each 10% of catchment planted when trees aged between 10 and 20 years [16]. Similarly, eucalyptus plantation reduced over a 3-year period the annual peak flow by 48 mm when 10% of a catchment was afforested [16]. Another study reported that eucalyptus and pinus reduced on average runoff by 75% and 40%, respectively [9].

7.2. Slow-Growing Forests

In contrast to fast-growing forests, slow-growing forests consume less water and, therefore, have fewer impacts on SWA (Figure 2a,b). This finding indicates that some species are more tolerant to droughts than others. Trees can suppress runoff movement [156] and, thus, affect positively and significantly the water yield [157]. For example, studies have concluded that commercial forests and trees, and tree densities can enhance infiltration, increase groundwater and are considered the prime regulators within the water cycle [156,157,158]. As a result, slow-growing forests are suitable for afforestation projects since they have fewer effects on SWA regarding water consumption.

7.3. Effect of Stand Density on SWA

Research results in West Africa reported that forest densities maximized groundwater recharge [158], which could also be affected by vegetation community types and phenology [159]. Changes in forest densities can alter the hydrologic processes at the watershed scale [38]. Simularly, another study reported that SWA increased with an increase in stand density [160]. However, this may depend on the tree species, stand age, and climate. For example, research finding showed that the plantation of high-density Pinus sylvestris significantly reduced the SWA [161]. This finding corroborates the results of another study that suggests to reduce the density of Quercus ilex in semi-arid woodlands to prevent excessive water deficit [162]. The reduction in SWA occurred due to tree transpiration [163]. As such, a reduction in stand density may lead to an increase in SWA in native forest areas [164]. Admittedly, competition for resources among trees can also reduce SWA. For example, the results of a study underscore that an increase in understory density led to a reduction in SWA [165].

7.4. Effect of Forest Age on SWA

Forests/trees play several roles increasing (through infiltration) and decreasing (via evaporation) SWA depending on several factors, including forest age. A relationship between SWA and forest age involves time and space. It was found in the literature that water infiltration increases with forest age [166]. Notably, two temporal scenarios could be presented regarding the influence of tree age on SWA:

7.4.1. Young/Juvenile Forest vs SWA

The first scenario is that during their growth, young trees accumulate a large quantity of biomass, grow faster, consume much water, have high ET rates, and reduce the amount of SWA or existing water in a watershed (Figure 2c). Young pinus have ET rates greater than old pinus and, thus, may reduce streamflow of a given watershed [167]. As trees pass through multiple phenological phases before reaching maturity, from the juvenile phase to the adult phase, the amount of water they use and associated ET rates may vary across stages of growth (Figure 2). ET rates decrease with forest age [129]. Trees can uptake large amounts of soil water and evaporate more water under various hydrogeologic conditions. At earlier ages, they reduce the amount of SWA. Long-term fluctuations in pioneer forest areas and age structure decreased freshwater in riparian forests [168]. Regrowth stands have a higher transpiration rate than old stands [169,170] and consume an amount of water approximately twice as much as old-growth stands [171]. This suggests that stand age in plantations is a crucial factor which could be managed to increase water yield since juvenile trees affect water yield more negatively than old trees.

7.4.2. Mature and Old Forests vs SWA

The second scenario encompasses mature trees, which consume less water and could evaporate less than younger trees (Figure 2d). This statement is supported by research finding in South Africa, which pointed out that pinus and eucalyptus plantations 30 and 15 years of age, respectively, appeared to return streamflow to pre-afforestation levels [16].
A previous study highlighted that annual water use had decreased from 679 to 296 mm for 50-year-old and 230-year-old stands, respectively [172]. These findings align with a study highlighted that regrowth of hardwood forests might take as long as 8–25 years before recovering that of a mature forest [173]. Mature and old-growth forests have moderate ET and consistent water yield, while managed forest plantations provide low water yield, particularly during the dry season [174] and thus affects water flow regulation [175]. This finding corroborates other studies conducted in the Tropical Atlantic Forest region of Brazil such as that of and, in South Africa, in another study conducted [176]. Mature eucalyptus and pinus plantation ages positively correlate with water availability [16,177]. Undoubtedly, forest age in forested watersheds is correlated with the regional mean annual streamflow [178], which is one of the factors that increases ET partitioning [179,180].
The transpiration rate of trees varies in the following order: young forests > mature forests > old forests (Figure 2). Likewise, there is a relationship between the height of a tree and water stress on a watershed scale. For example, tall trees have very high evapotranspiration rates and therefore experience great water stress [181]. The relationship between forest age and SWA follows the previous order, indicating that young forests consume more water than mature and old forests (Figure 2e). In such a case, plants can passively use their roots to enable water redistribution in the soil profile [18]. The effect of forest age on SWA depends on other factors, including the types of trees and climatic conditions. Of note, forest type, species, age, environmental conditions, and forest management practices are among the factors enabling water-use efficiency [182].

7.5. Influence of Forests on Water Quality

Rainfall regimes can combine with forests plantations to modify watershed hydrology. Runoff generation mechanisms can alter water quality, particularly in agricultural lands where runoff may contain pesticides and affect the soil properties of the downstream buffer zones [183]. In such cases, soil properties may be influenced by both tree species and dominant pedogenetic processes [184]. Dense vegetation represents a prominent alternative for reducing colloidal contaminants in surface runoff [185] and promotes water conservation [186]. In such cases, forests can greatly contribute to ecosystem services and natural resources management, including water. The concentration and total amount of nutrients (e.g., phosphorous and nitrogen) transported in runoff can be affected by soil type [187,188] and thus alter water quality. The movement of nutrients, SWA, and soil production are dependent on and regulated by bedrock weathering [189]. Some trees have continuous and deep roots to absorb and recover nutrients and thus mitigate the deterioration of water quality. In such cases, trees can be used for phytoremediation techniques to remove trace metals from the soil [190]. Several researchers have argued that cacao trees remove trace metals of cadmium from the soil [190,191,192] and reduce soil degradation problems [193,194]. Of note, the conversion of forest soils into pastures and row crops may cause deterioration in the quality of water resources [195].

8. Conclusions and Future Research

Forests can influence the amount of water available at some stages of the hydrological cycle. In this review, the roles of forests were addressed while considering several factors, such as stand density, forest type, tree species, stand age, and soil composition. This review also analyzed the influence of forest cover on hydrological processes. Overall, it was admitted that afforestation could positively affect soil erosion control on degraded soils. Nevertheless, this impact can change due to tree litter, forming a layer more permeable to infiltration. The findings showed that trees and watershed hydrology have complex interactions, where the effects could be either positive or negative on SWA, watershed yield, and groundwater recharge. The effects of forests on watershed hydrology mainly depend on the type of aquifer and other characteristics such as local or regional climate, canopy type, soil composition, tree density, and landscape topography. The type of trees to be planted should be taken into consideration, as fast-growing trees (e.g., eucalyptus, and pinus) reduce SWA. The strength of this review lies in the fact that it encompasses a range of evidence about the interaction between trees and watershed hydrology, as well as how different environmental and geological factors can affect this complex relationship. The novelty of this study highlighted that trees’ effectiveness in increasing water availability occurs with the use of some specific species used for afforestation on large-scale watersheds, where trees increase groundwater recharge. Afforestation with proper trees can help increase SWA. Admittedly, less dense forests are more likely to increase the different components of the water cycle than denser forests. Also, trees can be used as a phytoremediation technique to reduce transport of chemical elements in surface runoff and thus limit soil degradation and water contamination. Regarding the impacts of trees on runoff, they could reduce it, depending on the type of forest cover (e.g., plantation versus native forests), stand age, density, and species. One of the limitations of this review is that it did not explore the relationship between tree roots and SWA in depth. Further research is necessary to identify other factors (such as shapes and directions of root systems) that may impact the relationship between trees and other components of watershed hydrology. In conclusion, our conceptual model demonstrates that native forests play a crucial role in natural resource management. This review may prove to be helpful to decision-makers in choosing the best alternative for afforestation strategies in some specific areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.F. and E.M.-N., A.N.R.; methodology, M.F. A.N.R., E.M.-N and D.F.; M.F.; validation, M.F., E.M.-N., A.N.R., D.F.; T.R.A.J. and M.S.M.; formal analysis, M.F. and E.M.-N., A.N.R., D.F.; investigation, M.F.; resources, D.F.; data curation, M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F.; writing—review and editing, M.F., E.M.-N., A.N.R., D.F.; T.R.A.J. and M.S.M.; visualization, M.F., A.N.R. and E.M.-N., D.F.; supervision, E.M.-N. and A.N.R.; project administration, E.M.-N.; funding acquisition, D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Grant No. 142018/2020-1) and M.F. was awarded a scholarship from the Brazilian Federal Foundation for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education - CAPES Foundation, an agency under the Ministry of Education of Brazil, in order to conduct part of his doctoral research as a Visiting Student at Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS), Centre Eau Terre Environnement.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are included in the paper; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2015: how are the world’s forests changing?, second edition. ed. food and agriculture organization of the united nations. 2016, Rome, Italy.
  2. Brack, D. Forests and climate change. United Nations. p. 56. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arora, P.; Luhach, J.; Sharma, M.; Chaudhry, S. Mitigation of climate change and role of forest management: a short review. Univers. J. Environ. Res. Technol. 2012, 2, 198–202. [Google Scholar]
  4. Azigwe, J.B.; Duku, I.G.; Laare, J.; Adda, G. Rain water harvesting for planting and growing trees to green the polytechnic campus: a case study of Bolgatanga polytechnic. Brit. J. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alvarez-Garreton, C.; Lara, A.; Boisier, J.P.; Galleguillos, M. The impacts of native forests and forest plantations on water supply in Chile. Forests 2019, 10, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Riitters, K.; Wickham, J.; Costanza, J.K.; Vogt, P. A global evaluation of forest interior area dynamics using tree cover data from 2000 to 2012. Landscape Ecol. 2016, 31, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ellison, D.; Futter, M.N.; Bishop, K. On the forest cover–water yield debate: from demand- to supply-side thinking. Glob Change Biol. 2012, 18, 806–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Robinson, M.; Gannon, B.; Schuch, M. A comparison of the hydrology of moorland under natural conditions, agricultural use and forestry. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1991, 36, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Farley, K.A.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 1565–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jackson, R.B.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Avissar, R.; Roy, S.B.; Barrett, D.J.; Cook, C.W.; Farley, K.A.; le Maitre, D.C.; McCarl, B.A.; Murray, B.C. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 2005, 310, 1944–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buytaert, W.; Iñiguez, V.; Bièvre, B.D. The effects of afforestation and cultivation on water yield in the Andean páramo. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Galleguillos, M.; Gimeno, F.; Puelma, C.; Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.; Lara, A.; Rojas, M. Disentangling the effect of future land use strategies and climate change on streamflow in a Mediterranean catchment dominated by tree plantations. J. Hydrol. 2021, 595, 126047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, H.; Duan, K.; Liu, B.; Chen, X. Assessing the large-scale plant–water relations in the humid, subtropical pearl river basin of China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 25, 4741–4758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anurag, H.; Ng, G.H.C.; Tipping, R.; Tokos, K. Modeling the impact of spatiotemporal vegetation dynamics on groundwater recharge. J. Hydrol. 2021, 601, 126584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Delzon, S.; Loustau, D. Age-related decline in stand water use: sap flow and transpiration in a pine forest chronosequence. Agri. For. Meteorol. 2005, 129, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Scott, D.F.; Prinsloo, F.W. Longer-term effects of pine and eucalypt plantations on streamflow: effects of plantations on streamflow. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gu, D.; He, W.; Huang, K.; Otieno, D.; Zhou, C.; He, C.; Huang, Y. Transpiration of moso bamboo in southern China is influenced by ramet age, phenology, and drought. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 450, 117526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bonan, G.B. Ecological climatology. Concepts and applications. Cambridge University Press. 2002, p.550.
  19. Le Maitre, D.C.; Scott, D.F.; Colvin, C. A review of information on interactions between vegetation and groundwater. Water 1999, 25, 137–157. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yang, Z.; Li, W.; Li, X.; He, J. Quantitative analysis of the relationship between vegetation and groundwater buried depth: A case study of a coal mine district in Western China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 770–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kopeć, D.; Michalska-Hejduk, D.; Krogulec, E. The relationship between vegetation and groundwater levels as an indicator of spontaneous wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 57, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhou, Y.; Wenninger, J.; Yang, Z.; Yin, L.; Huang, J.; Hou, L.; Wang, X.; Zhang, D.; Uhlenbrook, S. Groundwater–surface water interactions, vegetation dependencies and implications for water resources management in the semi-arid Hailiutu River catchment, China – a synthesis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 2435–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, J.; Feng, M.Q.; Wang, Y. Wavelet analysis on effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res. 2019, 17, 9411–9423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tabari, H. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. Sci Rep. 2020, 10, 13768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Trenberth, K. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res. 2011, 47, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arora, V.K.; Boer, G.J. Effects of simulated climate change on the hydrology of major river basins. J. Geophys. Res. 2001, 106, 3335–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. D’Almeida, C.; Vörösmarty, C.J.; Hurtt, G.C.; Marengo, J.A.; Dingman, S.L.; Keim, B.D. The effects of deforestation on the hydrological cycle in Amazonia: a review on scale and resolution. Int. J. Climatol. 2007, 27, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vergopolan, N.; Fisher, J.B. The impact of deforestation on the hydrological cycle in Amazonia as observed from remote sensing. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2016, 37, 5412–5430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hou, Y.; Wei, X.; Zhang, M.; Creed, I.F.; McNulty, S.G.; Ferraz, S.F.B. A global synthesis of hydrological sensitivities to deforestation and forestation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, M.; Liu, S.; Jones, J.; Sun, G.; Wei, X.; Ellison, D.; Archer, E.; McNulty, S.; Asbjornsen, H.; Zhang, Z.; Serengil, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yu, Z.; Li, Q.; Luan, J.; Yurtseven, I.; Hou, Y.; Deng, S.; Liu, Z. Managing the forest-water nexus for climate change adaptation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 525, 120545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gimeno, L.; Eiras-Barca, J.; Durán-Quesada, A.M.; Dominguez, F.; Van Der Ent, R.; Sodemann, H.; Sánchez-Murillo, R.; Nieto, R.; Kirchner, J.W. The residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Belmar, O.; Barquín, J.; Álvarez-Martínez, J.M.; Peñas, F.J.; Del Jesus, M. The role of forest maturity in extreme hydrological events. Ecohydrology 2018, 11, e1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Penna, D.; Oliviero, O.; Assendelft, R.; Zuecco, G.; Meerveld, I. (H. J.) V.; Anfodillo, T.; Carraro, V.; Borga, M.; Fontana, G.D. Tracing the water sources of trees and streams: isotopic analysis in a small pre-alpine catchment. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2013, 19, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Knighton, J.; Singh, K.; Evaristo, J. Understanding catchment-scale forest root water uptake strategies across the continental united states through inverse ecohydrological modeling. Geophys Res. Lett. 2020, 47, e2019GL085937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lawrence, D.M.; Oleson, K.W.; Flanner, M.G.; Thornton, P.E.; Swenson, S.C.; Lawrence Peter, J.; Zeng, X.; Yang, Z.; Levis, S.; Sakaguchi, K.; Bonan, G.B.; and Slater, A.G. Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in version 4 of the community land model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2011, 3, 1–29, M03001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brooks, J.; Barnard, H.R.; Coulombe, R.; McDonnell, J.J. Ecohydrologic separation of water between trees and streams in a Mediterranean climate. Nature Geosci. 2010, 3, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Asbjornsen, H.; Goldsmith, G.R.; Alvarado-Barrientos, M.S.; Rebel, K.; Van Osch, F.P.; Rietkerk, M.; Chen, J.; Gotsch, S.; Tobon, C.; Geissert, D.R.; Gomez-Tagle, A.; Vache, K.; Dawson, T.E. Ecohydrological advances and applications in plant-water relations research: a review. J. Plant Ecol. 2011, 4, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vose, J.M.; Miniat, C.F.; Luce, C.H.; Asbjornsen, H.; Caldwell, P.V.; Campbell, J.L.; Grant, G.E.; Isaak, D.J.; Loheide, S.P.; Sun, G. Ecohydrological implications of drought for forests in the United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 380, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gimeno, L.; Drumond, A.; Nieto, R.; Trigo, R.M.; Stohl, A. On the origin of continental precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pearce, F. Weather makers. Science 2020, 368, 1302–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Trenberth, K.E.; Guillemot, C.J. Evaluation of the atmospheric moisture and hydrological cycle in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. Clim. Dyn. 1998, 14, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. van der Ent, R.J.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Schaefli, B.; Steele-Dunne, S.C. Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sorí, R.; Gimeno-Sotelo, L.; Nieto, R.; Liberato, M.L.R.; Stojanovic, M.; Pérez-Alarcón, A.; Fernández-Alvarez, J.C.; Gimeno, L. Oceanic and terrestrial origin of precipitation over 50 major world river basins: Implications for the occurrence of drought. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 859, 160288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sheil, D. Forests, atmospheric water and an uncertain future: the new biology of the global water cycle. For. Ecosyst. 2018, 5, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brubaker, K.L.; Entekhabi, D.; Eagleson, P.S. Estimation of continental precipitation recycling. J. Clim. 1993, 6, 1077–1089. Available online: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/ 6/6/1520-0442_1993_006_1077_eocpr_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/ journals/clim/6/6/1520-0442_1993_006_1077_eocpr_2_0_co_2.xml. [CrossRef]
  46. Ampuero, A.; Stríkis, N.M.; Apaéstegui, J.; Vuille, M.; Novello, V.F.; Espinoza, J.C.; Cruz, F.W.; Vonhof, H.; Mayta, V.C.; Martins, V.T.S.; Cordeiro, R.C.; Azevedo, V.; Sifeddine, A. The forest effects on the isotopic composition of rainfall in the northwestern amazon basin. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2020, 125, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barbeta, A.; Peñuelas, J. Relative contribution of groundwater to plant transpiration estimated with stable isotopes. Sci Rep. 2017, 7, 10580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Carrière, S.D.; Ruffault, J.; Cakpo, C.B.; Olioso, A.; Doussan, C.; Simioni, G.; Chalikakis, K.; Patris, N.; Davi, H.; MartinSt-Paul, N.K. Intra-specific variability in deep water extraction between trees growing on a mediterranean karst. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lozano-Baez, S.E.; Cooper, M.; Meli, P.; Ferraz, S.F.B.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Sauer, T.J. Land restoration by tree planting in the tropics and subtropics improves soil infiltration, but some critical gaps still hinder conclusive results. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 444, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Regelink, I.C.; Stoof, C.R.; Rousseva, S.; Weng, L.; Lair, G.J.; Kram, P.; Comans, R.N.J. Linkages between aggregate formation, porosity and soil chemical properties. Geoderma 2015, 247–248, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hock, B.; Payn, T.; Clinton, P.; Turner, J. Towards green markets for New Zealand plantations. N.Z.J. For. 2009, 54, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  52. Harden, C.P.; Mathews, L. Rainfall response of degraded soil following reforestation in the copper basin, Tennessee, USA. Environ. Manage. 2000, 26, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tsui, C.-C.; Chen, Z.-S.; Hsieh, C.-F. Relationships between soil properties and slope position in a lowland rain forest of southern Taiwan. Geoderma 2004, 123, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Begum, F.; Bajracharya, R.M.; Sharma, S.; Sitaula, B.K. Influence of slope aspect on soil physico-chemical and biological properties in the mid hills of central Nepal. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2010, 17, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Agbeshie, A.A.; Abugre, S. Soil properties and tree growth performance along a slope of a reclaimed land in the rain forest agroecological zone of Ghana. Sci. Afr. 2021, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rhoades, C.C. Single-tree influences on soil properties in agroforestry: lessons from natural forest and savanna ecosystems. Agroforest. Syst. 1996, 35, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rodríguez-Robles, U.; Arredondo, T. The role of the geologic substrate on tillandsia recurvata infestation and the development of forest decaying on a semiarid oak forest. Catena 2022, 208, 105724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rashidi, M.; Ahmadbeyki, A.; Hajiaghaei, A. Prediction of soil infiltration rate based on some physical properties of soil. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2014, 14, 1359–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Descroix, L.; Viramontes, D.; Vauclin, M.; Gonzalez Barrios, J.L.; Esteves, M. Influence of soil surface features and vegetation on runoff and erosion in the western sierra madre (Durango, Northwest Mexico). Catena. 2001, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cadol, D.; Kampf, S.; Wohl, E. Effects of evapotranspiration on baseflow in a tropical headwater catchment. J. Hydrol. 2012, 462–463, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ding, B.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, X.; Jia, G.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, P.; Li, Z. Effects of forest cover type and ratio changes on runoff and its components. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022, 10, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bent, G.C. Effects of forest-management activities on runoff components and ground-water recharge to Quabbin Reservoir, central Massachusetts. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 143, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tarigan, S.; Wiegand, K.; Sunarti; Slamet, B. Minimum forest cover required for sustainable water flow regulation of a watershed: a case study in Jambi Province, Indonesia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cheng, J.D.; Lin, L.L.; Lu, H.S. Influences of forests on water flows from headwater watersheds in Taiwan. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 165, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Neill, A.J.; Birkel, C.; Maneta, M.P.; Tetzlaff, D.; Soulsby, C. Structural changes to forests during regeneration affect water flux partitioning, water ages and hydrological connectivity: Insights from tracer-aided ecohydrological modelling. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 25, 4861–4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zomlot, Z.; Verbeiren, B.; Huysmans, M.; Batelaan, O. Spatial distribution of groundwater recharge and base flow: Assessment of controlling factors. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 4, 349–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khomsiati, N.L.; Suryoputro, N.; Yulistyorini, A.; Idfi, G.; Alias, N.E.B. The effect of forest area change in tropical islands towards baseflow and streamflow. IOP Conf. Series: Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 847, 012032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Al-Tameemi, M.A.; Chukin, V.V. Global water cycle and solar activity variations. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 2016, 142, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Guug, S.S.; Abdul-Ganiyu, S.; Kasei, R.A. Application of swat hydrological model for assessing water availability at the sherigu catchment of Ghana and southern Burkina Faso. Hydro. Research 2020, 3, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Garcia-Chevesich, P.A.; Neary, D.G.; Scott, D.F.; Benyon, T.R. International hydrological programme, ihp-viii, unesco, regional office for sciences for latin america and the caribbean, 2017. Forest management and the impact on water resources: b a review of 13 countries. united nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization international hydrological programme international sediment initiative, Paris, France, p.103.
  71. Lei, C.; Wagner, P.D.; Fohrer, N. Effects of land cover, topography, and soil on stream water quality at multiple spatial and seasonal scales in a german lowland catchment. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dodd, M.B.; Lauenroth, W.K. The influence of soil texture on the soil water dynamics and vegetation structure of a shortgrass steppe ecosystem. Plant Ecol. 1997, 133, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Castillo, Y.; Oyarzun, C. Effect of exotic fast-growing forest plantations on water yield in south-central Chilean watersheds: A review (preprint). 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Costa, F.R.C.; Schietti, J.; Stark, S.C.; Smith, M.N. The other side of tropical forest drought: do shallow water table regions of Amazonia act as large-scale hydrological refugia from drought? New Phytologist. 2023, 237, 714–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Runyan, C.; D’Odorico, P. Irreversibility and ecosystem impacts. In: global deforestation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, p.144.
  76. Soong, J.L.; Janssens, I.A.; Grau, O.; Margalef, O.; Stahl, C.; Van Langenhove, L.; Urbina, I.; Chave, J.; Dourdain, A.; Ferry, B.; Freycon, V.; Herault, B.; Sardans, J.; Peñuelas, J.; Verbruggen, E. Soil properties explain tree growth and mortality, but not biomass, across phosphorus-depleted tropical forests. Sci Rep. 2020, 10, 2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Maxwell, T.M.; Silva, L.C.R.; Horwath, W.R. Integrating effects of species composition and soil properties to predict shifts in montane forest carbon–water relations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2018, 115, E4219–E4226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Carrière, S.D.; Martin-StPaul, N.K.; Cakpo, C.B.; Patris, N.; Gillon, M.; Chalikakis, K.; Doussan, C.; Olioso, A.; Babic, M.; Jouineau, A.; Simioni, G.; Davi, H. The role of deep vadose zone water in tree transpiration during drought periods in karst settings – Insights from isotopic tracing and leaf water potential. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 699, 134332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Li, X.; Chang, S.X.; Salifu, K.F. Soil texture and layering effects on water and salt dynamics in the presence of a water table: a review. Environ. Rev. 2014, 22, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hartmann, A.; Weiler, M.; Greinwald, K.; Blume, T. The impact of soil development, rainfall intensity and vegetation complexity on subsurface flow paths along a glacial chronosequence of 10 millennia (preprint). Hillslope hydrology/Instruments and observation techniques (preprint). 2021. [CrossRef]
  81. Rodríguez-Caballero, E.; Cantón, Y.; Chamizo, S.; Lázaro, R.; Escudero, A. Soil loss and runoff in semiarid ecosystems: a complex interaction between biological soil crusts, micro-topography, and hydrological drivers. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 529–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Blanco-Gómez, P.; Jimeno-Sáez, P.; Senent-Aparicio, J.; Pérez-Sánchez, J. Impact of climate change on water balance components and droughts in the Guajoyo river basin (El Salvador). Water 2019, 11, 2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jiali, Q.; Shen, Z.; Leng, G.; Xie, H.; Hou, X.; Wei, G. Impacts of climate change on watershed systems and potential adaptation through BMPs in a drinking water source area. J. Hydrol. 2019, 573, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ich, I.; Sok, T.; Kaing, V.; Try, S.; Chan, R.; Oeurng, C. Climate change impact on water balance and hydrological extremes in the Lower Mekong basin: a case study of Prek Thnot River Basin, Cambodia. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2022, 13, 2911–2939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, Z.; Quiring, S.M. Investigating spatial heterogeneity of the controls of surface water balance in the contiguous United States by considering anthropogenic factors. J. Hydrol. 2021, 601, 126621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pecchi, M.; Marchi, M.; Moriondo, M.; Forzieri, G.; Ammoniaci, M.; Bernetti, I.; Bindi, M.; Chirici, G. Potential impact of climate change on the forest coverage and the spatial distribution of 19 key forest tree species in Italy under RCP4.5 IPCC Trajectory for 2050s. MPDI Forests 2020, 11, 934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Nijland, W.; Van Der Meijde, M.; Addink, E.A.; De Jong, S.M. Detection of soil moisture and vegetation water abstraction in a Mediterranean natural area using electrical resistivity tomography. Catena 2010, 81, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dahal, P.; Shrestha, M.L.; Panthi, J.; Pradhananga, D. Modeling the future impacts of climate change on water availability in the Karnali River Basin of Nepal Himalaya. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Daneshi, A.; Brouwer, R.; Najafinejad, A.; Panahi, M.; Zarandian, A.; Maghsood, F.F. Modelling the impacts of climate and land use change on water security in a semi-arid forested watershed using InVEST. J. Hydrol. 2021, 593, 125621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhang, L.; Nan, Z.; Yu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, Y. Comparison of baseline period choices for separating climate and land use/land cover change impacts on watershed hydrology using distributed hydrological models. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622–623, 1016–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Sajikumar, N.; Remya, R.S. Impact of land cover and land use change on runoff characteristics. J. Environ. Manage. 2014, 161, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kundzewicz, Z.W. Climate change impacts on the hydrological cycle. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2008, 8, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yang, K.; Wu, H.; Qin, J.; Lin, C.; Tang, W.; Chen, Y. Recent climate changes over the Tibetan Plateau and their impacts on energy and water cycle: A review. Glob Planet Change. 2014, 112, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Grover, V.I. Impact of climate change on the water cycle. In: Shrestha, S., Anal, A., Salam, P., van der Valk, M. (eds) Managing water resources under climate uncertainty. Springer Water. Springer, Cham. 2015, p.3–30. [CrossRef]
  95. Ma, J.; Zhou, L.; Foltz, G.R.; Qu, X.; Ying, J.; Tokinaga, H.; Mechoso, C.R.; Li, J.; Gu, X. Hydrological cycle changes under global warming and their effects on multiscale climate variability. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2020, 1472, 21–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tao, F.; Yokozawa, M.; Hayashi, Y.; Lin, E. Terrestrial water cycle and the impact of climate change. Ambio 2003, 32, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Martínez-Retureta, R.; Aguayo, M.; Stehr, A.; Sauvage, S.; Echeverría, C.; Sánchez-Pérez, J.-M. Effect of land use/cover change on the hydrological response of a southern center basin of Chile. Water 2020, 12, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yang, Y.; Roderick, M.L.; Guo, H.; Miralles, D.G.; Zhang, L.; Fatichi, S.; Luo, X.; Zhang, Y.; McVicar, T.R.; Tu, Z.; Keenan, T.F.; Fisher, J.B.; Gan, R.; Zhang, X.; Piao, S.; Zhang, B.; Yang, D. Evapotranspiration on a greening Earth. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 626–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gallardo-Cruz, J.A.; Pérez-García, E.A.; Meave, J.A. β-Diversity and vegetation structure as influenced by slope aspect and altitude in a seasonally dry tropical landscape. Landscape Ecol. 2009, 24, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rossatto, D.R.; de Carvalho Ramos Silva, L.; Villalobos-Vega, R.; Sternberg, L.d.S.L.; Franco, A.C. Depth of water uptake in woody plants relates to groundwater level and vegetation structure along a topographic gradient in a neotropical savanna. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2012, 77, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, R.; Pan, Y.; Bao, H.; Liang, S.; Jiang, Y.; Tu, H.; Nong, J.; Huang, W. Variations in soil physico-chemical properties along slope position gradient in secondary vegetation of the hilly region, Guilin, southwest China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Adams, H.R.; Barnard, H.R.; Loomis, A.K. Topography alters tree growth–climate relationships in a semi-arid forested catchment. Ecosphere 2014, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Måren, I.E.; Karki, S.; Prajapati, C.; Yadav, R.K.; Shrestha, B.B. Facing north or south: does slope aspect impact forest stand characteristics and soil properties in a semiarid trans-himalayan valley? J. Arid Environ. 2015, 121, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, X.; Yu, G.Q.; Li, Z.B.; Li, P. Experimental study on slope runoff, erosion and sediment under different vegetation types. Water Resour. Manage. 2014, 28, 2415–2433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Feng, X.; Fu, B.; Piao, S.; Wang, S.; Ciais, P.; Zeng, Z.; Lü, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Li, Y.; Jiang, X.; Wu, B. Revegetation in China’s loess plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nature Clim. Change 2016, 6, 1019–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Qiu, L.; Wu, Y.; Wang, L.; Lei, X.; Liao, W.; Hui, Y.; Meng, X. Spatiotemporal response of the water cycle to land use conversions in a typical hilly–gully basin on the loess plateau, China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 6485–6499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hu, W.; Chau, H.W.; Qiu, W.; Si, B. Environmental controls on the spatial variability of soil water dynamics in a small watershed. J. Hydrol. 2017, 551, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rempe, D.M.; Dietrich, W.E. A bottom-up control on fresh-bedrock topography under landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111, 6576–6581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Yu, B.; Liu, G.; Liu, Q.; Feng, J.; Wang, X.; Han, G.; Huang, C. Effects of micro-topography and vegetation type on soil moisture in a large gully on the Loess Plateau of China. Hydrol. Res. 2018, 49, 1255–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yao, L.; Wang, D. Controls of land surface and bedrock topography on the spatial distributions of water table and storage: unifying saturation excess runoff models (preprint). 2021. [CrossRef]
  111. Leomo, S.; Ginting, S.; Sabarudin, L.; Tufaila, M.; Muhidin, M. Effect of vegetation types on soil erosion in endanga watershed, southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biosci. Res. 2018, 15, 1688–1694. [Google Scholar]
  112. Xu, Z.; Liu, W.; Li, Q.; Wu, J.; Duan, H.; Huang, G.; Ge, Y. Responses of intra-annual runoff to forest recovery patterns in subtropical China. J. For. Res. 2020, 32, 1479–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ao, C.; Zeng, W.; Yang, P.; Xing, W.; Lei, G.; Wu, J.; Huang, J. The effects of slope shape and polyacrylamide application on runoff, erosion and nutrient loss from hillslopes under simulated rainfall. Hydrol. Process. 2021, 35, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yu, Y.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.; Feng, T.; Daryanto, S. Quantifying the effects of precipitation, vegetation, and land preparation techniques on runoff and soil erosion in a Loess watershed of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Shen, L.; Wang, X.; Liu, T.; Wei, W.; Zhang, S.; Li, L.; Zhang, W. The relationship between root growth, soil resources, and productivity in an apple–soybean irrigated agroforestry system in northwest China (preprint). In review. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chen, H.; Zhang, X.; Abla, M.; Lü, D.; Yan, R.; Ren, Q.; Ren, Z.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, W.; Lin, P.; Liu, B.; Yang, X. Effects of vegetation and rainfall types on surface runoff and soil erosion on steep slopes on the loess plateau, China. Catena 2018, 170, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wang, G.; Liu, G.; Liu, L. Spatial scale effect on seasonal streamflows in permafrost catchments on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26, 973–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sriwongsitanon, N.; Taesombat, W. Effects of land cover on runoff coefficient. J. Hydrol. 2011, 410, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Eagleson, P.S. Ecohydrology. Darwinian expression of vegetation from and function. Cambridge University Press., 2002. p.442.
  120. Horton, R.E. The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle. Trans. Am. Geophys. 1933, 14, 446–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Dunne, T.; Black, R.D. An experimental investigation of runoff production in permeable soils. Water Resour. Res. 1970, 6, 478–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Liu, J.; Gao, G.; Wang, S.; Jiao, L.; Wu, X.; Fu, B. The effects of vegetation on runoff and soil loss: multidimensional structure analysis and scale characteristics. J. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lopes, T.R.; Zolin, C.A.; Mingoti, R.; Vendrusculo, L.G.; Almeida, F.T. de, Souza, A.P. de, Oliveira, R.F. de, Paulino, J.; Uliana, E.M. Hydrological regime, water availability and land use/land cover change impact on the water balance in a large agriculture basin in the Southern Brazilian Amazon. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2021, 108, 103224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Gardon, F.R.; Toledo, R.M. de, Brentan, B.M.; Santos, R.F. dos. Rainfall interception and plant community in young forest restorations. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 109, 105779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nainar, A.; Tanaka, N.; Sato, T.; Mizuuchi, Y.; Kuraji, K. A comparison of hydrological characteristics between a cypress and mixed-broadleaf forest: implication on water resource and floods. J. Hydrol. 2021, 595, 125679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sun, D.; Zhang, W.; Lin, Y.; Liu, Z.; Shen, W.; Zhou, L.; Rao, X.; Liu, S.; Cai, X.; He, D.; Fu, S. Soil erosion and water retention varies with plantation type and age. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 422, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Brown, A.G.; Nambiar, E.K.S. Plantations, farm forestry and water: proceedings of a national workshop, 20-, Melbourne. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton, A.C.T., 2001, p.73. 21 July.
  128. Rahmat, A.; Noda, K.; Onishi, T.; Senge, M. Runoff characteristcs of forest watersheds under different forest managements. Rev. Agri. Sci. 2018, 6, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Keenan, R.J. Planted forests and water in perspective. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Wongchuig, S.; Espinoza, J.C.; Condom, T.; Junquas, C.; Sierra, J.P.; Fita, L.; Sörensson, A.; Polcher, J. Changes in the surface and atmospheric water budget due to projected Amazon deforestation: Lessons from a fully coupled model simulation. J. Hydrol. 2023, 625, 130082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Betts, R.A.; Boucher, O.; Collins, M.; Cox, P.M.; Falloon, P.D.; Gedney, N.; Hemming, D.L.; Huntingford, C.; Jones, C.D.; Sexton, D.M.H.; Webb, M.J. Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide. Nature 2007, 448, 1037–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Mao, J.; Fu, W.; Shi, X.; Ricciuto, D.M.; Fisher, J.B.; Dickinson, R.E.; Wei, Y.; Shem, W.; Piao, S.; Wang, K.; Schwalm, C.R.; Tian, H.; Mu, M.; Arain, A.; Ciais, P.; Cook, R.; Dai, Y.; Hayes, D.; Hoffman, F.M.; Huang, M.; Huang, S.; Huntzinger, D.N.; Ito, A.; Jain, A.; King, A.W.; Lei, H.; Lu, C.; Michalak, A.M.; Parazoo, N.; Peng, C.; Peng, S.; Poulter, B.; Schaefer, K.; Jafarov, E.; Thornton, P.E.; Wang, W.; Zeng, N.; Zeng, Z.; Zhao, F.; Zhu, Q.; Zhu, Z. Disentangling climatic and anthropogenic controls on global terrestrial evapotranspiration trends. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 094008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Huntington, T.G. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: review and synthesis. J. Hydrol. 2006, 319, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Filoso, S.; Bezerra, M.O.; Weiss, K.C.B.; Palmer, M.A. Impacts of forest restoration on water yield: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Blöschl, G.; Sivapalan, M. Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrol. Process. 1995, 9, 251–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ferraz, S.F.d.B.; Rodrigues, C.B.; Garcia, L.G.; Alvares, C.A.; Lima, W.d.P. Effects of Eucalyptus plantations on streamflow in Brazil: moving beyond the water use debate. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 453, 117571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Joshi, M.; Palanisami, K. Impact of eucalyptus plantations on ground water availability in South Karnataka. ICID 21st international congress on irrigation and drainage, Tehran, Iran, 2011, 255–262.
  138. Little, C.; Lara, A.; McPhee, J.; Urrutia, R. Revealing the impact of forest exotic plantations on water yield in large scale watersheds in south-central Chile. J. Hydrology 2009, 374, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Naghizadeh, Z.; Wessels, C.B. The effect of water availability on growth strain in Eucalyptus grandis-urophylla trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 483, 118926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ong, C.K.; Black, C.R.; Muthuri, C.W. Modifying forestry and agroforestry to increase water productivity in the semi-arid tropics. CAB Reviews 2006, 1, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Shem, K.; Catherine, M.; Ong, C. Gas exchange responses of Eucalyptus, C. Africana and G. robusta to varying soil moisture content in semi-arid (Thika) Kenya. Agroforest Syst 2009, 75, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sikka, A.K.; Samra, J.S.; Sharda, V.N.; Samraj, P.; Lakshmanan, V. Low flow and high flow responses to converting natural grassland into bluegum (eucalyptus globulus) in nilgiris watersheds of South India. J. Hydrol. 2003, 270, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Tian, A.; Wang, Y.; Webb, A.A.; Liu, Z.; Ma, J.; Yu, P.; Wang, X. Water yield variation with elevation, tree age and density of larch plantation in the liupan mountains of the loess plateau and its forest management implications. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Zhou, G.Y.; Morris, J.D.; Yan, J.H.; Yu, Z.Y.; Peng, S.L. Hydrological impacts of reafforestation with eucalypts and indigenous species: a case study in southern China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 167, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Cassiano, C.C.; Moreira, R.M.E.; Ferraz, S.F.D.B. Fast-growing forest management to regulate the balance between wood production and water supply. Sci. agric. 2023, 80, e20210148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Bonnesoeur, V.; Locatelli, B.; Guariguata, M.R.; Ochoa-Tocachi, B.F.; Vanacker, V.; Mao, Z.; Stokes, A.; Mathez-Stiefel, S.-L. Impacts of forests and forestation on hydrological services in the Andes: A systematic review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 433, 569–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Reichert, J.M.; Prevedello, J.; Gubiani, P.I.; Vogelmann, E.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Consensa, C.O.B.; Soares, J.C.W.; Srinivasan, R. Eucalyptus tree stockings effect on water balance and use efficiency in subtropical sandy soil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 497, 119473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Christina, M.; Nouvellon, Y.; Laclau, J.; Stape, J.L.; Bouillet, J.; Lambais, G.R.; Maire, G. Importance of deep water uptake in tropical eucalypt forest. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 31, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Iroumé, A.; Jones, J.; Bathurst, J.C. Forest operations, tree species composition and decline in rainfall explain runoff changes in the Nacimiento experimental catchments, south central Chile. Hydrol. Process. 2021, 35, e14257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Maestre, F.T.; Cortina, J. Are Pinus halepensis plantations useful as a restoration tool in semiarid mediterranean areas? For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 198, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Querejeta, J.I.; Roldán, A.; Albaladejo, J.; Castillo, V. Soil water availability improved by site preparation in a pinus halepensis afforestation under semiarid climate. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 149, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Cannell, M.G.R. Environmental impacts of forest monocultures: water use, acidification, wildlife conservation, and carbon storage, in: Boyle, J.R., Winjum, J.K., Kavanagh, K., Jensen, E.C. (Eds.), planted forests: contributions to the quest for sustainable societies, forestry sciences. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1999, p. 239–262.
  153. Cui, X.; Liu, S.; Wei, X. Impacts of forest changes on hydrology: a case study of large watersheds in the upper reaches of Minjiang River watershed in China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 4279–4290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sudmeyer, R.A.; Simons, J.A. Eucalyptus globulus agroforestry on deep sands on the southeast coast of Western Australia: the promise and the reality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 127, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Liu, T.; Jiang, K.; Tan, Z.; He, Q.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C. A method for performing reforestation to effectively recover soil water content in extremely degraded tropical rain forests. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 643994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Iwara, A.I.; Ogundele, F.O.; Ibor, U.W.; Arrey, V.M.; Okongor, O.E. Effect of vegetation adjoining tourism facilities on soil properties in the tourism enclave of cross river state. Res. J. Appl. Sci. 2011, 6, 276–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Singh, S.; Mishra, A. Spatiotemporal analysis of the effects of forest covers on water yield in the western ghats of peninsular India. J. Hydrol. 2012, 446–447, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ilstedt, U.; Bargués Tobella, A.; Bazié, H.R.; Bayala, J.; Verbeeten, E.; Nyberg, G.; Sanou, J.; Benegas, L.; Murdiyarso, D.; Laudon, H.; Sheil, D.; Malmer, A. Intermediate tree cover can maximize groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics. Sci Rep. 2016, 6, 21930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wang, K.; Onodera, S.-I.; Saito, M.; Shimizu, Y.; Iwata, T. Effects of forest growth in different vegetation communities on forest catchment water balance. Sci. Total environ. 2022, 809, 151159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Chen, B.; Li, Y.; Fan, S.; Peng, C.; Huang, B.; Liu, G. Soil properties and understory species diversity at different stand densities in a tropical rainforest on Hainan Island, China | Bodeneigenschaften und Artenvielfalt bei unterschiedlicher Bestandsdichte in einem tropischen Regenwald auf der Insel Hainan, China. Austrian J. For. Sci. 2020, 137, 225246. [Google Scholar]
  161. Nan, W.; Ta, F.; Meng, X.; Dong, Z.; Xiao, N. Effects of age and density of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica on soil moisture in the semiarid Mu Us Dunefield, northern China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 473, 118313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Moreno, G.; Cubera, E. Impact of stand density on water status and leaf gas exchange in Quercus ilex. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 254, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Lie, Z.; Liu, L.; Xue, L. Effects of drought stress on physiological characteristics of Cinnamomum camphora seedlings under different planting densities. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2018, 20, 1437–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Steckel, M.; Moser, W.K.; Del Río, M.; Pretzsch, H. Implications of reduced stand density on tree growth and drought susceptibility: a study of three species under varying climate. Forests 2020, 11, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Giuggiola, A.; Zweifel, R.; Feichtinger, L.M.; Vollenweider, P.; Bugmann, H.; Haeni, M.; Rigling, A. Competition for water in a xeric forest ecosystem – Effects of understory removal on soil micro-climate, growth and physiology of dominant Scots pine trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 409, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Deuchars, S.A.; Townend, J.; Aitkenhead, M.J.; FitzPatrick, E.A. Changes in soil structure and hydraulic properties in regenerating rain forest. Soil Use Manage. 2006, 15, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Law, B.E.; Goldstein, A.H.; Anthoni, P.M.; Unsworth, M.H.; Panek, J.A.; Bauer, M.R.; Fracheboud, J.M.; Hultman, N. Carbon dioxide and water vapor exchange by young and old ponderosa pine ecosystems during a dry summer. Tree Physiol. 2001, 21, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Stromberg, J.C.; Tluczek, M.G.F.; Hazelton, A.F.; Ajami, H. A century of riparian forest expansion following extreme disturbance: spatio-temporal change in populus/salix/tamarix forests along the upper San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1181–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Macfarlane, C.; Bond, C.; White, D.A.; Grigg, A.H.; Ogden, G.N.; Silberstein, R. Transpiration and hydraulic traits of old and regrowth eucalypt forest in southwestern Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Roberts, S.; Vertessy, R.; Grayson, R. Transpiration from eucalyptus sieberi (L. Johnson) forests of different age. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 143, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Vertessy, R.A.; Watson, F.G.R.; O′Sullivan, S.K. Factors determining relations between stand age and catchment water balance in mountain ash forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 143, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Dunn, G.M.; Connor, D.J. An analysis of sap flow in mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests of different age. Tree Physiol. 1993, 13, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Sun, G.; Noormets, A.; Chen, J.; McNulty, S.G. Evapotranspiration estimates from eddy covariance towers and hydrologic modeling in managed forests in northern Wisconsin, USA. Agric For. Meteorol. 2008, 148, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Jones, J.; Ellison, D.; Ferraz, S.; Lara, A.; Wei, X.; Zhang, Z. Forest restoration and hydrology. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 520, 120342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Ferraz, S.F.B.; Lima, W.D.P.; Rodrigues, C.B. Managing forest plantation landscapes for water conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 301, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Dye, P.J. Climate, forest and streamflow relationships in South African afforested catchments. Commonw. For. Rev. 1996, 75, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  177. Lesch, W.; Scott, D.F. The response in water yield to the thinning of Pinus radiata, Pinus patula and Eucalyptus grandis plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 99, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Haydon, S.R.; Benyon, R.G.; Lewis, R. Variation in sapwood area and throughfall with forest age in mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell.). J. Hydrol. 1997, 187, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Wang, D.; Wang, L. Dynamics of evapotranspiration partitioning for apple trees of different ages in a semiarid region of northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 191, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Wang, D.; Wang, L. Soil water dynamics in apple orchards of different ages on the loess plateau of China. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 180049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Emanuel, R.E.; Epstein, H.E.; McGlynn, B.L.; Welsch, D.L.; Muth, D.J.; D’Odorico, P. Spatial and temporal controls on watershed ecohydrology in the northern Rocky Mountains. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, 2009WR008890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Xu, H.; Creed, I.F.; Blanco, J.A.; Wei, X.; Sun, G.; Asbjornsen, H.; Bishop, K. Forest water-use efficiency: Effects of climate change and management on the coupling of carbon and water processes. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 534, 120853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Syversen, N.; Bechmann, M. Vegetative buffer zones as pesticide filters for simulated surface runoff. Ecol. Eng. 2004, 22, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Romanyà, J.; Fons, J.; Sauras-Yera, T.; Gutiérrez, E.; Vallejo, V.R. Soil–plant relationships and tree distribution in old growth nothofagus betuloides and nothofagus pumilio forests of tierra del fuego. Geoderma 2005, 124, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Yu, C.; Gao, B.; Muñoz-Carpena, R. Effect of dense vegetation on colloid transport and removal in surface runoff. J. Hydrology 2012, 434–435, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Zongo, B.; Zongo, F.; Toguyeni, A.; Boussim, J.I. Water quality in forest and village ponds in Burkina Faso (western Africa). J. For. Res. 2017, 28, 1039–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Gilley, J.E.; Eghball, B.; Wienhold, B.J.; Miller, P.S. Nutrients in runoff following the application of swine manure to interrill areas. Trans. ASAE. 2001, 44, 1651–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Utzig, D.L.; Minella, J.P.G.; Schneider, F.J.A.; Londero, A.L.; Dambroz, A.B.P.; Barros, C.A.P.; Tiecher, T.; Kaiser, D.R. Nutrient transport in surface runoff and sediment yield on macroplots and zero-order catchments under no-tillage. Catena 2023, 231, 107333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Pedrazas, M.A.; Hahm, W.J.; Huang, M.; Dralle, D.; Nelson, M.D.; Breunig, R.E.; Fauria, K.E.; Bryk, A.B.; Dietrich, W.E.; Rempe, D.M. The relationship between topography, bedrock weathering, and water storage across a sequence of ridges and valleys. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2021, 126, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. François, M.; Pontes, M.C.G.; Da Silva, A.L.; Mariano-Neto, E. Impacts of cacao agroforestry systems on climate change, soil conservation, and water resources: a review. Water Policy 2023, 25, 564–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Oliva, M.; Rubio, K.; Epquin, M.; Marlo, G.; Leiva, S. Cadmium uptake in native cacao trees in agricultural lands of Bagua, Peru. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Oliveira, B.R.M.; de Almeida, A.-A.F.; Santos, N. de A.; Pirovani, C.P. Tolerance strategies and factors that influence the cadmium uptake by cacao tree. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 293, 110733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Hooke, J.; Sandercock, P. Use of vegetation to combat desertification and land degradation: Recommendations and guidelines for spatial strategies in Mediterranean lands. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Sarvade, S.; Upadhyay, V.B.; Kumar, M.; Khan, M.I. Soil and water conservation techniques for sustainable agriculture. sustainable agriculture, forest and environmental management, 2019, p.133–188.
  195. Neary, D.G.; Ice, G.G.; Jackson, C.R. Linkages between forest soils and water quality and quantity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 2269–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 117027 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual models of water mass balance of a tree canopy delineated by the upper control volume and the soil water of the underlying control volume of the porous media.
Figure 1. Conceptual models of water mass balance of a tree canopy delineated by the upper control volume and the soil water of the underlying control volume of the porous media.
Preprints 117027 g001
Preprints 117027 g002
Figure 2. Relationship between trees and a part of vertical water fluxes and soil water availability, illustrating differences between fast and slow-growing forests. Fast-growing forests have a larger impact on soil water availability due to their higher transpiration rates, especially during early ages.
Figure 2. Relationship between trees and a part of vertical water fluxes and soil water availability, illustrating differences between fast and slow-growing forests. Fast-growing forests have a larger impact on soil water availability due to their higher transpiration rates, especially during early ages.
Preprints 117027 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated