Figures (8)  Tables (3)
    • Figure 1. 

      The location of (a) the research site, (b) the illustration of flux tower, and (c) the thermal infrared imagery collected from the urban forest ecosystem.

    • Figure 2. 

      Seasonal dynamics in (a) soil water content (SWC) and precipitation (P), (b) air temperature (Ta) and net radiation (Rn), (c) wind speed (Ws) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) in the Nanchang urban forest ecosystem.

    • Figure 3. 

      Pearson's correlation coefficients among the canopy-air temperature difference (dT), latent heat flux (LE), and environmental variables under sunny days in the Nanchang urban forest ecosystem. ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05.

    • Figure 4. 

      Relationships among the soil water content (SWC), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), latent heat flux (LE), and canopy conductance (gc). ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05.

    • Figure 5. 

      Canopy-air temperature difference (dTll) vs vapour pressure deficit (VPD) under well-watered conditions (all daytime hours data on sunny days were pooled together). ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05.

    • Figure 6. 

      Performance of the daily empirical plant water stress index (PWSIe) in indicating urban forest ecosystem water status. ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05.

    • Figure 7. 

      Daily variations in the daytime mean theoretical plant water stress index (PWSIt_day), canopy conductance (gc), and latent heat flux (LE) on sunny days from July to October 2024. ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05.

    • Figure 8. 

      Performance of the daytime mean theoretical plant water stress index (PWSIt_day) in indicating urban forest ecosystem water status. ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05.

    • Time Slope (°C·kPa−1) Intercept (°C) R2
      8:00 −0.9226 2.1068 0.8366**
      9:00 −0.6772 2.7285 0.5622*
      10:00 −0.6640 3.4301 0.2670
      11:00 −0.5382 3.7108 0.1008
      12:00 −0.2808 3.9867 0.0761
      13:00 −0.8012 5.5463 0.5116*
      14:00 −0.3989 4.3425 0.1421
      15:00 −1.0205 4.4587 0.6430*
      16:00 −0.8735 2.6552 0.2374
      17:00 −1.5884 2.3692 0.8748**
      8:00 − 17:00 −0.8227 3.5879 0.8633**
      ** represents p < 0.01; * represents p < 0.05 (same in all tables).

      Table 1. 

      Fitted parameters for non-water-stressed baselines.

    • TimeSlopeInterceptR2
      8:00gc−0.0050−0.00950.0036
      LE0.0008−0.26550.0278
      9:00gc−0.02890.53310.1609**
      LE−0.00190.77650.2080**
      10:00gc−0.05950.90840.2507**
      LE−0.00371.33500.2891**
      11:00gc−0.07291.22230.2154**
      LE−0.00501.88310.3102**
      12:00gc−0.07811.01970.0282
      LE−0.00782.35120.0838*
      13:00gc0.0087−0.24270.0040
      LE0.0020−0.69670.0656
      14:00gc0.0253−0.39080.0066
      LE0.0055−1.61100.0958*
      15:00gc0.0043−0.11960.0013
      LE0.0036−1.00960.2621**
      16:00gc−0.01030.09910.0063
      LE0.0031−0.80230.1704**
      17:00gc−0.00860.02880.0090
      LE0.0017−0.49910.1077*

      Table 2. 

      Relationships between empirical plant water stress index (PWSIe) and canopy conductance (gc) and between PWSIe and latent heat flux (LE) at various times.

    • TimeSlopeInterceptR2
      8:00gc−0.01000.29760.0320
      LE−0.00080.40580.0556
      9:00gc−0.01260.26010.1315**
      LE−0.00060.31690.1051*
      10:00gc−0.01310.28040.1995**
      LE−0.00050.30610.1060*
      11:00gc−0.00810.27350.1093**
      LE−0.00020.24890.0171
      12:00gc−0.01290.38310.2121**
      LE−0.00030.34330.0327
      13:00gc−0.01310.45300.2288**
      LE−0.00050.47060.1084*
      14:00gc−0.02150.60370.4517**
      LE−0.00100.68550.3262**
      15:00gc−0.02500.71230.3034**
      LE−0.00180.96600.4931**
      16:00gc−0.02210.79610.1857**
      LE−0.00221.16380.5400**
      17:00gc−0.01230.91010.0309
      LE−0.00251.45610.3940**

      Table 3. 

      Relationships between theoretical plant water stress index (PWSIt) and canopy conductance (gc) and between PWSIt and latent heat flux (LE) at various times.