We analysed the responses of 11 ecosystem models to elevated atmospheric [CO2] (eCO2) at two temperate forest ecosystems (Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments) to test alternative representations of carbon (C)–nitrogen (N) cycle processes. We decomposed the model responses into component processes affecting the response to eCO2 and confronted these with observations from the FACE experiments. Most of the models reproduced the observed initial enhancement of net primary production (NPP) at both sites, but none was able to simulate both the sustained 10-yr enhancement at Duke and the declining response at ORNL: models generally showed signs of progressive N limitation as a result of lower than observed plant N uptake. Nonetheless, many models showed qualitative agreement with observed component processes. The results suggest that improved representation of above-ground–below-ground interactions and better constraints on plant stoichiometry are important for a predictive understanding of eCO2 effects. Improved accuracy of soil organic matter inventories is pivotal to reduce uncertainty in the observed C–N budgets. The two FACE experiments are insufficient to fully constrain terrestrial responses to eCO2, given the complexity of factors leading to the observed diverging trends, and the consequential inability of the models to explain these trends. Nevertheless, the ecosystem models were able to capture important features of the experiments, lending some support to their projections.
Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (eCO2) has the potential to increase vegetation carbon storage if increased net primary production causes increased long-lived biomass. Model predictions of eCO2 effects on vegetation carbon storage depend on how allocation and turnover processes are represented.We used data from two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments to evaluate representations of allocation and turnover in 11 ecosystem models.Observed eCO2 effects on allocation were dynamic. Allocation schemes based on functional relationships among biomass fractions that vary with resource availability were best able to capture the general features of the observations. Allocation schemes based on constant fractions or resource limitations performed less well, with some models having unintended outcomes. Few models represent turnover processes mechanistically and there was wide variation in predictions of tissue lifespan. Consequently, models did not perform well at predicting eCO2 effects on vegetation carbon storage.Our recommendations to reduce uncertainty include: use of allocation schemes constrained by biomass fractions; careful testing of allocation schemes; and synthesis of allocation and turnover data in terms of model parameters. Data from intensively studied ecosystem manipulation experiments are invaluable for constraining models and we recommend that such experiments should attempt to fully quantify carbon, water and nutrient budgets.
[1] Carbon flux models based on light use efficiency (LUE), such as the MOD17 algorithm, have proved difficult to parameterize because of uncertainties in the LUE term, which is usually estimated from meteorological variables available only at large spatial scales. In search of simpler models based entirely on remote-sensing data, we examined direct relationships between the enhanced vegetation index (EVI) and gross primary productivity (GPP) measured at nine eddy covariance flux tower sites across North America. When data from the winter period of inactive photosynthesis were excluded, the overall relationship between EVI and tower GPP was better than that between MOD17 GPP and tower GPP. However, the EVI/GPP relationships vary between sites. Correlations between EVI and GPP were generally greater for deciduous than for evergreen sites. However, this correlation declined substantially only for sites with the smallest seasonal variation in EVI, suggesting that this relationship can be used for all but the most evergreen sites. Within sites dominated by either evergreen or deciduous species, seasonal variation in EVI was best explained by the severity of summer drought. Our results demonstrate that EVI alone can provide estimates of GPP that are as good as, if not better than, current versions of the MOD17 algorithm for many sites during the active period of photosynthesis. Preliminary data suggest that inclusion of other remote-sensing products in addition to EVI, such as the MODIS land surface temperature (LST), may result in more robust models of carbon balance based entirely on remote-sensing data.
Understanding the role of climate extremes and their impact on the carbon (C) cycle is increasingly a focus of Earth system science. Climate extremes such as droughts, heat waves, or heavy precipitation events can cause substantial changes in terrestrial C fluxes. On the other hand, extreme changes in C fluxes are often, but not always, driven by extreme climate conditions. Here we present an analysis of how extremes in temperature and precipitation, and extreme changes in terrestrial C fluxes are related to each other in 10 state-of-the-art terrestrial carbon models, all driven by the same climate forcing. We use model outputs from the North American Carbon Program Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP). A global-scale analysis shows that both droughts and heat waves translate into anomalous net releases of CO 2 from the land surface via different mechanisms: Droughts largely decrease gross primary production (GPP) and to a lower extent total respiration (TR), while heat waves slightly decrease GPP but increase TR. Cold and wet periods have a smaller opposite effect. Analyzing extremes in C fluxes reveals that extreme changes in GPP and TR are often caused by strong shifts in water availability, but for extremes in TR shifts in temperature are also important. Extremes in net CO 2 exchange are equally strongly driven by deviations in temperature and precipitation. Models mostly agree on the sign of the C flux response to climate extremes, but model spread is large. In tropical forests, C cycle extremes are driven by water availability, whereas in boreal forests temperature plays a more important role. Models are particularly uncertain about the C flux response to extreme heat in boreal forests.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.