Votre recherche

Abstract Plants use only a fraction of their photosynthetically derived carbon for biomass production (BP). The biomass production efficiency (BPE), defined as the ratio of BP to photosynthesis, and its variation across and within vegetation types is poorly understood, which hinders our capacity to accurately estimate carbon turnover times and carbon sinks. Here, we present a new global estimation of BPE obtained by combining field measurements from 113 sites with 14 carbon cycle models. Our best estimate of global BPE is 0.41 ± 0.05, excluding cropland. The largest BPE is found in boreal forests (0.48 ± 0.06) and the lowest in tropical forests (0.40 ± 0.04). Carbon cycle models overestimate BPE, although models with carbon–nitrogen interactions tend to be more realistic. Using observation‐based estimates of global photosynthesis, we quantify the global BP of non‐cropland ecosystems of 41 ± 6 Pg C/year. This flux is less than net primary production as it does not contain carbon allocated to symbionts, used for exudates or volatile carbon compound emissions to the atmosphere. Our study reveals a positive bias of 24 ± 11% in the model‐estimated BP (10 of 14 models). When correcting models for this bias while leaving modeled carbon turnover times unchanged, we found that the global ecosystem carbon storage change during the last century is decreased by 67% (or 58 Pg C).

Abstract Increasing atmospheric methane (CH 4 ) concentrations have contributed to approximately 20% of anthropogenic climate change. Despite the importance of CH 4 as a greenhouse gas, its atmospheric growth rate and dynamics over the past two decades, which include a stabilization period (1999–2006), followed by renewed growth starting in 2007, remain poorly understood. We provide an updated estimate of CH 4 emissions from wetlands, the largest natural global CH 4 source, for 2000–2012 using an ensemble of biogeochemical models constrained with remote sensing surface inundation and inventory-based wetland area data. Between 2000–2012, boreal wetland CH 4 emissions increased by 1.2 Tg yr −1 (−0.2–3.5 Tg yr −1 ), tropical emissions decreased by 0.9 Tg yr −1 (−3.2−1.1 Tg yr −1 ), yet globally, emissions remained unchanged at 184 ± 22 Tg yr −1 . Changing air temperature was responsible for increasing high-latitude emissions whereas declines in low-latitude wetland area decreased tropical emissions; both dynamics are consistent with features of predicted centennial-scale climate change impacts on wetland CH 4 emissions. Despite uncertainties in wetland area mapping, our study shows that global wetland CH 4 emissions have not contributed significantly to the period of renewed atmospheric CH 4 growth, and is consistent with findings from studies that indicate some combination of increasing fossil fuel and agriculture-related CH 4 emissions, and a decrease in the atmospheric oxidative sink.

Abstract Our understanding and quantification of global soil nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions and the underlying processes remain largely uncertain. Here, we assessed the effects of multiple anthropogenic and natural factors, including nitrogen fertilizer (N) application, atmospheric N deposition, manure N application, land cover change, climate change, and rising atmospheric CO 2 concentration, on global soil N 2 O emissions for the period 1861–2016 using a standard simulation protocol with seven process‐based terrestrial biosphere models. Results suggest global soil N 2 O emissions have increased from 6.3 ± 1.1 Tg N 2 O‐N/year in the preindustrial period (the 1860s) to 10.0 ± 2.0 Tg N 2 O‐N/year in the recent decade (2007–2016). Cropland soil emissions increased from 0.3 Tg N 2 O‐N/year to 3.3 Tg N 2 O‐N/year over the same period, accounting for 82% of the total increase. Regionally, China, South Asia, and Southeast Asia underwent rapid increases in cropland N 2 O emissions since the 1970s. However, US cropland N 2 O emissions had been relatively flat in magnitude since the 1980s, and EU cropland N 2 O emissions appear to have decreased by 14%. Soil N 2 O emissions from predominantly natural ecosystems accounted for 67% of the global soil emissions in the recent decade but showed only a relatively small increase of 0.7 ± 0.5 Tg N 2 O‐N/year (11%) since the 1860s. In the recent decade, N fertilizer application, N deposition, manure N application, and climate change contributed 54%, 26%, 15%, and 24%, respectively, to the total increase. Rising atmospheric CO 2 concentration reduced soil N 2 O emissions by 10% through the enhanced plant N uptake, while land cover change played a minor role. Our estimation here does not account for indirect emissions from soils and the directed emissions from excreta of grazing livestock. To address uncertainties in estimating regional and global soil N 2 O emissions, this study recommends several critical strategies for improving the process‐based simulations.

Abstract The recent rise in atmospheric methane (CH 4 ) concentrations accelerates climate change and offsets mitigation efforts. Although wetlands are the largest natural CH 4 source, estimates of global wetland CH 4 emissions vary widely among approaches taken by bottom‐up (BU) process‐based biogeochemical models and top‐down (TD) atmospheric inversion methods. Here, we integrate in situ measurements, multi‐model ensembles, and a machine learning upscaling product into the International Land Model Benchmarking system to examine the relationship between wetland CH 4 emission estimates and model performance. We find that using better‐performing models identified by observational constraints reduces the spread of wetland CH 4 emission estimates by 62% and 39% for BU‐ and TD‐based approaches, respectively. However, global BU and TD CH 4 emission estimate discrepancies increased by about 15% (from 31 to 36 TgCH 4 year −1 ) when the top 20% models were used, although we consider this result moderately uncertain given the unevenly distributed global observations. Our analyses demonstrate that model performance ranking is subject to benchmark selection due to large inter‐site variability, highlighting the importance of expanding coverage of benchmark sites to diverse environmental conditions. We encourage future development of wetland CH 4 models to move beyond static benchmarking and focus on evaluating site‐specific and ecosystem‐specific variabilities inferred from observations.

Abstract Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is an important greenhouse gas and also an ozone-depleting substance that has both natural and anthropogenic sources. Large estimation uncertainty remains on the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of N 2 O fluxes and the key drivers of N 2 O production in the terrestrial biosphere. Some terrestrial biosphere models have been evolved to account for nitrogen processes and to show the capability to simulate N 2 O emissions from land ecosystems at the global scale, but large discrepancies exist among their estimates primarily because of inconsistent input datasets, simulation protocol, and model structure and parameterization schemes. Based on the consistent model input data and simulation protocol, the global N 2 O Model Intercomparison Project (NMIP) was initialized with 10 state-of-the-art terrestrial biosphere models that include nitrogen (N) cycling. Specific objectives of NMIP are to 1) unravel the major N cycling processes controlling N 2 O fluxes in each model and identify the uncertainty sources from model structure, input data, and parameters; 2) quantify the magnitude and spatial and temporal patterns of global and regional N 2 O fluxes from the preindustrial period (1860) to present and attribute the relative contributions of multiple environmental factors to N 2 O dynamics; and 3) provide a benchmarking estimate of N 2 O fluxes through synthesizing the multimodel simulation results and existing estimates from ground-based observations, inventories, and statistical and empirical extrapolations. This study provides detailed descriptions for the NMIP protocol, input data, model structure, and key parameters, along with preliminary simulation results. The global and regional N 2 O estimation derived from the NMIP is a key component of the global N 2 O budget synthesis activity jointly led by the Global Carbon Project and the International Nitrogen Initiative.

Abstract Despite the importance of net primary productivity (NPP) and net biome productivity (NBP), estimates of NPP and NBP for China are highly uncertain. To investigate the main sources of uncertainty, we synthesized model estimates of NPP and NBP for China from published literature and the Multi‐scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP). The literature‐based results showed that total NPP and NBP in China were 3.35 ± 1.25 and 0.14 ± 0.094 Pg C yr −1 , respectively. Classification and regression tree analysis based on literature data showed that model type was the primary source of the uncertainty, explaining 36% and 64% of the variance in NPP and NBP, respectively. Spatiotemporal scales, land cover conditions, inclusion of the N cycle, and effects of N addition also contributed to the overall uncertainty. Results based on the MsTMIP data suggested that model structures were overwhelmingly important (>90%) for the overall uncertainty compared to simulations with different combinations of time‐varying global change factors. The interannual pattern of NPP was similar among diverse studies and increased by 0.012 Pg C yr −1 during 1981–2000. In addition, high uncertainty in China's NPP occurred in areas with high productivity, whereas NBP showed the opposite pattern. Our results suggest that to significantly reduce uncertainty in estimated NPP and NBP, model structures should be substantially tested on the basis of empirical results. To this end, coordinated distributed experiments with multiple global change factors might be a practical approach that can validate specific structures of different models. , Key Points Large uncertainty exists in estimates of terrestrial NPP and NBP in China Methodological differences greatly contribute to the uncertainty in NPP and NBP Uncertainty in the interannual pattern of NBP is greater than that of NPP

Abstract Process‐based land surface models are important tools for estimating global wetland methane (CH 4 ) emissions and projecting their behavior across space and time. So far there are no performance assessments of model responses to drivers at multiple time scales. In this study, we apply wavelet analysis to identify the dominant time scales contributing to model uncertainty in the frequency domain. We evaluate seven wetland models at 23 eddy covariance tower sites. Our study first characterizes site‐level patterns of freshwater wetland CH 4 fluxes (FCH 4 ) at different time scales. A Monte Carlo approach was developed to incorporate flux observation error to avoid misidentification of the time scales that dominate model error. Our results suggest that (a) significant model‐observation disagreements are mainly at multi‐day time scales (<15 days); (b) most of the models can capture the CH 4 variability at monthly and seasonal time scales (>32 days) for the boreal and Arctic tundra wetland sites but have significant bias in variability at seasonal time scales for temperate and tropical/subtropical sites; (c) model errors exhibit increasing power spectrum as time scale increases, indicating that biases at time scales <5 days could contribute to persistent systematic biases on longer time scales; and (d) differences in error pattern are related to model structure (e.g., proxy of CH 4 production). Our evaluation suggests the need to accurately replicate FCH 4 variability, especially at short time scales, in future wetland CH 4 model developments. , Plain Language Summary Land surface models are useful tools to estimate and predict wetland methane (CH 4 ) flux but there is no evaluation of modeled CH 4 flux error at different time scales. Here we use a statistical approach and observations from eddy covariance sites to evaluate the performance of seven wetland models for different wetland types. The results suggest models have captured CH 4 flux variability at monthly or seasonal time scales for boreal and Arctic tundra wetlands but failed to capture the observed seasonal variability for temperate and tropical/subtropical wetlands. The analysis suggests that improving modeled flux at short time scale is important for future model development. , Key Points Significant model‐observation disagreements were found at multi‐day and weekly time scales (<15 days) Models captured variability at monthly and seasonal time (42–142 days) scales for boreal and Arctic tundra sites but not for temperate and tropical sites The model errors show that biases at multi‐day time scales may contribute to persistent systematic biases on longer time scales

Abstract Changes in rainfall amounts and patterns have been observed and are expected to continue in the near future with potentially significant ecological and societal consequences. Modelling vegetation responses to changes in rainfall is thus crucial to project water and carbon cycles in the future. In this study, we present the results of a new model‐data intercomparison project, where we tested the ability of 10 terrestrial biosphere models to reproduce the observed sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to rainfall changes at 10 sites across the globe, in nine of which, rainfall exclusion and/or irrigation experiments had been performed. The key results are as follows: (a) Inter‐model variation is generally large and model agreement varies with timescales. In severely water‐limited sites, models only agree on the interannual variability of evapotranspiration and to a smaller extent on gross primary productivity. In more mesic sites, model agreement for both water and carbon fluxes is typically higher on fine (daily–monthly) timescales and reduces on longer (seasonal–annual) scales. (b) Models on average overestimate the relationship between ecosystem productivity and mean rainfall amounts across sites (in space) and have a low capacity in reproducing the temporal (interannual) sensitivity of vegetation productivity to annual rainfall at a given site, even though observation uncertainty is comparable to inter‐model variability. (c) Most models reproduced the sign of the observed patterns in productivity changes in rainfall manipulation experiments but had a low capacity in reproducing the observed magnitude of productivity changes. Models better reproduced the observed productivity responses due to rainfall exclusion than addition. (d) All models attribute ecosystem productivity changes to the intensity of vegetation stress and peak leaf area, whereas the impact of the change in growing season length is negligible. The relative contribution of the peak leaf area and vegetation stress intensity was highly variable among models.

Abstract. Field measurements of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) in temperate grasslands suggest that both positive and negative asymmetric responses to changes in precipitation (P) may occur. Under normal range of precipitation variability, wet years typically result in ANPP gains being larger than ANPP declines in dry years (positive asymmetry), whereas increases in ANPP are lower in magnitude in extreme wet years compared to reductions during extreme drought (negative asymmetry). Whether the current generation of ecosystem models with a coupled carbon–water system in grasslands are capable of simulating these asymmetric ANPP responses is an unresolved question. In this study, we evaluated the simulated responses of temperate grassland primary productivity to scenarios of altered precipitation with 14 ecosystem models at three sites: Shortgrass steppe (SGS), Konza Prairie (KNZ) and Stubai Valley meadow (STU), spanning a rainfall gradient from dry to moist. We found that (1) the spatial slopes derived from modeled primary productivity and precipitation across sites were steeper than the temporal slopes obtained from inter-annual variations, which was consistent with empirical data; (2) the asymmetry of the responses of modeled primary productivity under normal inter-annual precipitation variability differed among models, and the mean of the model ensemble suggested a negative asymmetry across the three sites, which was contrary to empirical evidence based on filed observations; (3) the mean sensitivity of modeled productivity to rainfall suggested greater negative response with reduced precipitation than positive response to an increased precipitation under extreme conditions at the three sites; and (4) gross primary productivity (GPP), net primary productivity (NPP), aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) all showed concave-down nonlinear responses to altered precipitation in all the models, but with different curvatures and mean values. Our results indicated that most models overestimate the negative drought effects and/or underestimate the positive effects of increased precipitation on primary productivity under normal climate conditions, highlighting the need for improving eco-hydrological processes in those models in the future.

Our current understanding of terrestrial carbon processes is represented in various models used to integrate and scale measurements of CO 2 exchange from remote sensing and other spatiotemporal data. Yet assessments are rarely conducted to determine how well models simulate carbon processes across vegetation types and environmental conditions. Using standardized data from the North American Carbon Program we compare observed and simulated monthly CO 2 exchange from 44 eddy covariance flux towers in North America and 22 terrestrial biosphere models. The analysis period spans ∼220 site‐years, 10 biomes, and includes two large‐scale drought events, providing a natural experiment to evaluate model skill as a function of drought and seasonality. We evaluate models' ability to simulate the seasonal cycle of CO 2 exchange using multiple model skill metrics and analyze links between model characteristics, site history, and model skill. Overall model performance was poor; the difference between observations and simulations was ∼10 times observational uncertainty, with forested ecosystems better predicted than nonforested. Model‐data agreement was highest in summer and in temperate evergreen forests. In contrast, model performance declined in spring and fall, especially in ecosystems with large deciduous components, and in dry periods during the growing season. Models used across multiple biomes and sites, the mean model ensemble, and a model using assimilated parameter values showed high consistency with observations. Models with the highest skill across all biomes all used prescribed canopy phenology, calculated NEE as the difference between GPP and ecosystem respiration, and did not use a daily time step.

Accurately simulating gross primary productivity (GPP) in terrestrial ecosystem models is critical because errors in simulated GPP propagate through the model to introduce additional errors in simulated biomass and other fluxes. We evaluated simulated, daily average GPP from 26 models against estimated GPP at 39 eddy covariance flux tower sites across the United States and Canada. None of the models in this study match estimated GPP within observed uncertainty. On average, models overestimate GPP in winter, spring, and fall, and underestimate GPP in summer. Models overpredicted GPP under dry conditions and for temperatures below 0°C. Improvements in simulated soil moisture and ecosystem response to drought or humidity stress will improve simulated GPP under dry conditions. Adding a low‐temperature response to shut down GPP for temperatures below 0°C will reduce the positive bias in winter, spring, and fall and improve simulated phenology. The negative bias in summer and poor overall performance resulted from mismatches between simulated and observed light use efficiency (LUE). Improving simulated GPP requires better leaf‐to‐canopy scaling and better values of model parameters that control the maximum potential GPP, such as ε max (LUE), V cmax (unstressed Rubisco catalytic capacity) or J max (the maximum electron transport rate). , Key Points Gross primary productivity (GPP) from 26 models tested at 39 flux tower sites Simulated light use efficiency controls model performance Models overpredict GPP under dry conditions

Accurately simulating gross primary productivity (GPP) in terrestrial ecosystem models is critical because errors in simulated GPP propagate through the model to introduce additional errors in simulated biomass and other fluxes. We evaluated simulated, daily average GPP from 26 models against estimated GPP at 39 eddy covariance flux tower sites across the United States and Canada. None of the models in this study match estimated GPP within observed uncertainty. On average, models overestimate GPP in winter, spring, and fall, and underestimate GPP in summer. Models overpredicted GPP under dry conditions and for temperatures below 0°C. Improvements in simulated soil moisture and ecosystem response to drought or humidity stress will improve simulated GPP under dry conditions. Adding a low‐temperature response to shut down GPP for temperatures below 0°C will reduce the positive bias in winter, spring, and fall and improve simulated phenology. The negative bias in summer and poor overall performance resulted from mismatches between simulated and observed light use efficiency (LUE). Improving simulated GPP requires better leaf‐to‐canopy scaling and better values of model parameters that control the maximum potential GPP, such as ε max (LUE), V cmax (unstressed Rubisco catalytic capacity) or J max (the maximum electron transport rate). , Key Points Gross primary productivity (GPP) from 26 models tested at 39 flux tower sites Simulated light use efficiency controls model performance Models overpredict GPP under dry conditions