Water scarcity, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions, is a critical issue affecting forest management. This study investigates the effects of drought stress on the water requirement and morphological characteristics of two important tree species Turkish pine and Chinaberry. Using a factorial design, the study examines the impact of three age stages (one-year-old, three-year-old, and five-year-old plants) and three levels of drought stress on these species. Microlysimeters of varying sizes were employed to simulate different drought conditions. Soil moisture was monitored to show the effect of the various irrigation schedules. The study also calculated reference crop evapotranspiration (ET₀) using the PMF-56 method and developed plant coefficients (Kc) for the species. Results showed that evapotranspiration increased with soil moisture, peaking during summer and decreasing in winter. Turkish pine exhibited higher plant ET than Chinaberry, particularly among one-year-old seedlings. Drought stress significantly reduced evapotranspiration and water uses for both species, highlighting the importance of efficient water management in afforestation projects. The findings underscore the necessity of selecting drought-resistant species and optimizing irrigation practices to enhance the sustainability of green spaces in arid regions. These insights are crucial for improving urban forestry management and mitigating the impacts of water scarcity in Iran and similar climates globally.

1. FAO. Role of planted forests and trees outside forests in sustainable forest management of Islamic Republic of Iran country study report. FAO; 2002.

2. Nguyen TT, Grote U, Neubacher F, et al. Security risks from climate change and environmental degradation: implications for sustainable land use transformation in the Global South. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2023; 63: 101322. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101322

3. Sotoudeh Foumani B, Rostami Shahraji T, Mohammadi Limaei S. Role of political power in forest administration policy of Iran. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2017; 15(2): 181-199.

4. Djazirehi MH, Ebrahimi Rostaghi M. Silviculture of Zagros. Tehran University Publications; 2013.

5. Fernández García I, Lecina S, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, et al. Trends and Challenges in Irrigation Scheduling in the Semi-Arid Area of Spain. Water. 2020; 12(3): 785. doi: 10.3390/w12030785

6. Bueno MM, dos Santos Leles PS, Gonçalves Abreu JF, et al. Water use and growth indicators of forest tree species seedlings produced with automated irrigation management. PLOS ONE. 2020; 15(11): e0238677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238677

7. Ahmadaali K, Rahimi H, Etemad V. Effect of Soil Texture and Different Levels of Irrigation Amount on Water use and Crop Coefficient of Melia azedarach L. in Karaj Area. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 2021; 51(12): 3195-3205.

8. Alaei J, Kouchakzadeh M, Sharifi F. Estimation water use and irrigation scheduling of the Tree Elaeagnus Angustifolia L. as Urban Green Space. Iranian Journal of Irrigation & Drainage. 2020; 13(6): 1869-1878.

9. Yang Y, Anderson MC, Gao F, et al. Daily Landsat-scale evapotranspiration estimation over a forested landscape in North Carolina, USA, using multi-satellite data fusion. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2017; 21(2): 1017-1037. doi: 10.5194/hess-21-1017-2017

10. Asgari M, Etemad V, Javanmiri pour M, et al. The effect of drought stress on the water use and plant factor of Turkish pine seedlings (Pinus eldarica Medw.) at various ages. Journal of Arid Biome. 2023; 13(2): 177-192.

11. Burn DH, Hesch NM. Trends in evaporation for the Canadian Prairies. Journal of Hydrology. 2007; 336(1-2): 61-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.011

12. Yang X, Lu M, Wang Y, et al. Response Mechanism of Plants to Drought Stress. Horticulturae. 2021; 7(3): 50. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae7030050

13. Alharbi S, Felemban A, Abdelrahim A, et al. Agricultural and Technology-Based Strategies to Improve Water-Use Efficiency in Arid and Semiarid Areas. Water. 2024; 16(13): 1842. doi: 10.3390/w16131842

14. Dolan F, Lamontagne J, Link R, et al. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nature Communications. 2021; 12(1). doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0

15. Vanino S, Pulighe G, Nino P, et al. Estimation of Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficients of Tendone Vineyards Using Multi-Sensor Remote Sensing Data in a Mediterranean Environment. Remote Sensing. 2015; 7(11): 14708-14730. doi: 10.3390/rs71114708

16. Sa´nchez-Blanco MJ, A´lvarez S, Fernanda Ortun˜o M, et al. Root System Response to Drought and Salinity: Root Distribution and Water Transport. Springer; 2014.

17. Fadaei Z, Kavian A, Solaimani K, et al. The Response of Soil Physicochemical Properties in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran to Forest Fire Events. Fire. 2022; 5(6): 195. doi: 10.3390/fire5060195

18. Al-Yahyai R. Managing irrigation of fruit trees using plant water status. Agricultural Sciences. 2012; 03(01): 35-43. doi: 10.4236/as.2012.31006

19. Christoforidou M, Borghuis G, Seijger C, et al. Food security under water scarcity: a comparative analysis of Egypt and Jordan. Food Security. 2022; 15(1): 171-185. doi: 10.1007/s12571-022-01310-y

20. Lozano CS, Rezende R, Freitas PSL de, et al. Estimatation of evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of melon cultivated in protected environment. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental. 2017; 21(11): 758-762. doi: 10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v21n11p758-762

21. Daba MH, Tadese A. Estimation of Optimum Water use and Frequency of Watering for Different Tree Seedlings at Bako Agricultural Research Center Nursery Site. Journal of Health and Environmental Research. 2017; 3(6): 90-97.

22. Ali MH, Adham AK, Rahman MM, et al. Sensitivity of Penman–Monteith estimates of reference evapotranspiration to errors in input climatic data. Journal of Agrometeorology. 2009; 11(1): 1-8. doi: 10.54386/jam.v11i1.1214

23. Djaman K, Balde AB, Sow A, et al. Evaluation of sixteen reference evapotranspiration methods under sahelian conditions in the Senegal River Valley. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies. 2015; 3: 139-159. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.02.002

24. Shokrollahzadeh MR, Miri HR, Abbasizadeh M. Determining the water use of Ulmus Carpinifolia elm and Nerium Oleander WUCOLS III using the method in the green space of Shiraz city. In: Proceedings of the Scientific Research Conference on Agriculture, Genetic Engineering and Medicinal Plants of Iran, Jiroft; 2016

25. Kassem MA. Water uses and crop coefficient of Date Palm trees. Irrigation And Drainage Journal. 2007; 24(2): 339-359.

26. Nouri K, Nikbakht A, Haghighi M, et al. Screening some pine species from North America and dried zones of western Asia for drought stress tolerance in terms of nutrients status, biochemical and physiological characteristics. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2023; 14. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1281688

27. Bhantana P, Lazarovitch N. Evapotranspiration, crop coefficient and growth of two young pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) varieties under salt stress. Agricultural Water Management. 2010; 97(5): 715-722. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.12.016.

28. Rao Y, Sun G, Ford CR, et al. Modeling Potential Evapotranspiration of Two Forested Watersheds in the Southern Appalachians. Transactions of the ASABE. 2011; 54(6): 2067-2078. doi: 10.13031/2013.40666

29. Santosh DT, Tiwari KN. Estimation of water requirement of Banana crop under drip irrigation with and without plastic mulch using dual crop coefficient approach. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2019; 344(1): 012024. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/344/1/012024

30. Zanotelli D, Montagnani L, Andreotti C, et al. Evapotranspiration and crop coefficient patterns of an apple orchard in a sub-humid environment. Agricultural Water Management. 2019; 226: 105756. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105756

31. Abou Najm MR, Stewart RD, Di Prima S, et al. A Simple Correction Term to Model Infiltration in Water‐Repellent Soils. Water Resources Research. 2021; 57(2). doi: 10.1029/2020wr028539

32. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Reas D, et al. Crop EvapotranspirationGuidelines for Computing Crop Water use, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.56. FAO; 1998.

33. Love S, Noble K, Robbins J, et al. Landscaping with Native Plants. University of Idaho Extension; 2009.

34. Asgari M, Javanmiri pour M, Etemad V, et al. Morphological characteristics of Fraxinus rotundifolia Mill, Morus alba and Acer negundo saplings under water stress in greenhouse and field in Robat Karim. Environmental Sciences. 2022; 20(2): 117-134. doi: 10.52547/envs.2022.1053

35. Delfan Azari N, Rostami Shahraji T, Gholami V, et al. An assessment of water use and investigation of different irrigation levels on growth parameters of Turkish pine (Pinus eldarica Medw) seedlings (case study: Tehran). Iranian Journal of Forest. 2018; 10(2): 237-250.

36. Ewaid SH, Abed SA, Al-Ansari N. Crop Water Requirements and Irrigation Schedules for Some Major Crops in Southern Iraq. Water. 2019; 11(4): 756. doi: 10.3390/w11040756

37. Rad MH, Assareh MH, Soltani M. Water use and water use efficiency in Eucalyptus flocktoniae (Maiden) Maiden and E. leucoxylon F. Muell. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research. 2017; 25(3): 441-451.

38. Rahimi H, Ahmadaali K, Etemad V. Determination of crop coefficient of Cercis siliquastrum L. in different soil textures and irrigation levels. Iranian Journal of Irrigation & Drainage. 2021; 14(6): 2100-2111.

39. Tadros MJ, Al-Assaf A, Othman YA, et al. Evaluating the Effect of Prosopis juliflora, an Alien Invasive Species, on Land Cover Change Using Remote Sensing Approach. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15): 5887. doi: 10.3390/su12155887

40. Mostafazadeh-Fard B, Heidarpour M, Hashemi SE. Species factor and evapotranspiration for an Ash (Fraxinus rotundifolia) and Cypress (Cupressus arizonica) in an arid region. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2009; 3(2): 71-82. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10111757