Votre recherche
Résultats 2 ressources
-
Abstract Anthropogenic activities have substantially enhanced the loadings of reactive nitrogen (Nr) in the Earth system since pre-industrial times 1,2 , contributing to widespread eutrophication and air pollution 3–6 . Increased Nr can also influence global climate through a variety of effects on atmospheric and land processes but the cumulative net climate effect is yet to be unravelled. Here we show that anthropogenic Nr causes a net negative direct radiative forcing of −0.34 [−0.20, −0.50] W m −2 in the year 2019 relative to the year 1850. This net cooling effect is the result of increased aerosol loading, reduced methane lifetime and increased terrestrial carbon sequestration associated with increases in anthropogenic Nr, which are not offset by the warming effects of enhanced atmospheric nitrous oxide and ozone. Future predictions using three representative scenarios show that this cooling effect may be weakened primarily as a result of reduced aerosol loading and increased lifetime of methane, whereas in particular N 2 O-induced warming will probably continue to increase under all scenarios. Our results indicate that future reductions in anthropogenic Nr to achieve environmental protection goals need to be accompanied by enhanced efforts to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to achieve climate change mitigation in line with the Paris Agreement.
-
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.