## 3 Results
### Evaportranspiration  
We estimated the impacts of changes in precipitation, temperature, and CO\({}_{2}\) concentration separately and in combination on evaporation and transpiration of _Pinus densiflora_ (Figure 6a) under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5. For the case of increases in precipitation alone, almost no changes in evaporation were modeled (less than 0.3% compared to baseline). These results indicated that, at the study site, the processes of surface evaporation were limited by energy availability rather than water. These limitations were also explained by the numerical experiments of temperature change-only scenarios. We modeled an approximately 5.71 mm yr\({}^{-1}\) increase of evaporation per degree Celsius increase in temperature. For the case of CO\({}_{2}\) concentration alone, slight decreases in evaporation were modeled. The stimulated photosynthesis due to CO\({}_{2}\) fertilizer effects enhanced biomass allocation to leaves, developing increased shading covers that reduced the energy available for evaporation. When all of the climate variables were considered together, increases in evaporation of 4.51, 5.84, 4.61, and 8.14% were modeled under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5, respectively. That is, temperature was the most important regulator between the other climate variables in positively affecting evaporation.  
Figure 4: Percent changes in projected soil for (**a**) CO\({}_{2}\) and (**b**) N\({}_{2}\)O over the 50-year study period for the scenario of precipitation change alone (first column), temperature change alone (second column), CO\({}_{2}\) change alone (third column), and all together (fourth column) under RCP 2.6 (blue), 4.5 (red), 6.0 (green), and 8.5 (orange) for the 2050s (from 2036 to 2065) compared with baseline. Error bars and circles are standard deviations and average values, respectively.  
We explored the transpiration of _Pinus densiflora_ under climate change (Figure 6b). For the case of precipitation change only, we modeled slightly higher water losses through transpiration of 0.52, 0.65, 0.46, 0.85% under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5, respectively, due to increased water availability. For the cases of temperature change only, the rising temperature increased the atmospheric vapor pressure deficit and thus the gradient of water between the atmosphere and leaf interior. These processes resulted in increased transpiration under elevated temperature scenarios. We estimated an approximately 2.53 mm yr\({}^{-1}\) increase in transpiration per degree Celsius increase in temperature. For the case of elevated CO\({}_{2}\) alone, we noted that, although CO\({}_{2}\) fertilizer effects reduced  
Figure 5: Percent changes in projected inorganic leaching at a depth of 3m compared with baseline for the scenario of (**a**) precipitation change alone, (**b**) temperature change alone, (**c**) CO\({}_{2}\) change alone, and (**d**) all together under RCP 2.6 (blue), 4.5 (red), 6.0 (green), and 8.5 (orange) for the 2050s (from 2036 to 2065). Shaded areas represent the 25 th to 75 th percentile intervals.  
the stomatal opening of _Pinus densiflora_, slight increases in transpiration of 1.08, 1.29, 1.19, and 1.39% under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5, respectively, were modeled due to enhanced photosynthesis rates. We found that the combined impacts of precipitation changes and rising temperature and CO\({}_{2}\) levels on the transpiration of _Pinus densiflora_ were not far from the additive.