Climate controls over the net carbon uptake period and amplitude of net ecosystem production in temperate and boreal ecosystems

Fu, Zheng; Stoy, Paul C.; Luo, Yiqi; Chen, Jiquan; Sun, Jian; Montagnani, Leonardo; Wohlfahrt, Georg; Rahman, Abdullah F.; Rambal, Serge; Bernhofer, Christian; Wang, Jinsong; Shirkey, Gabriela; Niu, Shuli

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.05.009

Cited by 73 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The IAVs of the land C sink at global and regional scales are in agreement with observations at ecosystem scales. For example, the observed NEE by the eddy covariance towers changed from 74 to 930 g C/m 2 /year at the site US‐Blo (Blodgett Forest in the Sierra Mountains of California) and from −158 to 240 g C/m 2 /year at the site Be‐Bra (De Inslag Forest in Brasschaat, Belgium) during the period from 1997 to 2007 (Fu, Stoy, et al, ). Across the 24 sites that have > 8 years of continuous measurement, the SD of NEE on average accounts for 50% of annual NEE (Figure b).…”

Section: Observed Phenomena Of Interannual Variation In Land Carbon Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Interannual variability of ecosystem carbon exchange: From observation to prediction

Niu

Luo

et al. 2017

Global Ecol Biogeogr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTerrestrial ecosystems have sequestered, on average, the equivalent of 30% of anthropogenic carbon (C) emissions during the past decades, but annual sequestration varies from year to year. For effective C management, it is imperative to develop a predictive understanding of the interannual variability (IAV) of terrestrial net ecosystem C exchange (NEE). LocationGlobal terrestrial ecosystems. MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive review to examine the IAV of NEE at global, regional and ecosystem scales. Then we outlined a conceptual framework for understanding how anomalies in climate factors impact ecological processes of C cycling and thus influence the IAV of NEE through biogeochemical regulation. ResultsThe phenomenon of IAV in land NEE has been ubiquitously observed at global, regional and ecosystem scales. Global IAV is often attributable to either tropical or semi-arid regions, or to some combination thereof, which is still under debate. Previous studies focus on identifying climate factors as driving forces of IAV, whereas biological mechanisms underlying the IAV of ecosystem NEE are less clear. We found that climate anomalies affect the IAV of NEE primarily through their differential impacts on ecosystem C uptake and respiration. Moreover, recent studies suggest that the carbon uptake period makes less contribution than the carbon uptake amplitude to IAV in NEE. Although land models incorporate most processes underlying IAV, their efficacy to predict the IAV in NEE remains low. Main conclusionsTo improve our ability to predict future IAV of the terrestrial C cycle, we have to understand biological mechanisms through which anomalies in climate factors cause the IAV of NEE. Future research needs to pay more attention not only to the differential effects of climate anomalies on photosynthesis and respiration but also to the relative importance of the C uptake period and amplitude in causing the IAV of NEE. Ultimately, we need multiple independent approaches, such as benchmark analysis, data assimilation and time-series statistics, to integrate data, modelling frameworks and theory to improve our ability to predict future IAV in the terrestrial C cycle.

show abstract

Section: Observed Phenomena Of Interannual Variation In Land Carbon Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Interannual variability of ecosystem carbon exchange: From observation to prediction

Niu

Luo

et al. 2017

Global Ecol Biogeogr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fu et al. () showed that a 1‐d advance in spring phenology was associated with a 1.6 g C/m 2 increase in NEP in spring (March–May), but no impact on annual NEP in grasslands. However, in contrast to previous studies, we found that an advance in spring phenology only affected GEP and NEP during EGS (20–50 d after SOS) rather than the whole spring season at most sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Fu et al. ), while the differences in the relationships between the changes in spring phenology and the dynamics of GEP, NEP, and ER were not fully revealed. (3) The date of green‐up derived from remote sensing or EC CO 2 flux time‐series data based on different thresholds was treated as a static phenological event (Richardson et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, Fu et al. () analyzed EC CO 2 fluxes from 24 flux tower sites in temperate and boreal ecosystems, and found that spring NEP increased by 4.0, 0.8, and 1.6 g C/m 2 per 1‐d advance of BDOY (beginning of the carbon uptake period) for deciduous broadleaf forests, evergreen forests, and grasslands, respectively. Richardson et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies have shown that the advance of spring phenology or the extension of the GSL changed the seasonal or annual gross ecosystem production (GEP) or net ecosystem productivity (NEP) in forests or grasslands (Black et al 2000, Churkina et al 2005, Piao et al 2007, Richardson et al 2009, Wu et al 2013a, Fu et al 2017, Gonsamo et al 2018. For example, Fu et al (2017) analyzed EC CO 2 fluxes from 24 flux tower sites in temperate and boreal ecosystems, and found that spring NEP increased by 4.0, 0.8, and 1.6 g C/m 2 per 1-d advance of BDOY (beginning of the carbon uptake period) for deciduous broadleaf forests, evergreen forests, and grasslands, respectively. Richardson et al (2010) summarized four possible conceptual models about the impacts of plant phenology on forests ecosystem productivity based on previous studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seasonal differences in relationships between changes in spring phenology and dynamics of carbon cycle in grasslands

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global warming is dramatically altering the plant phenology of terrestrial ecosystem and thus has caused significant effects on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Many studies have investigated the relationships between the spring phenological changes and the dynamics of carbon cycle, but the seasonal differences in these relationships are still unclear. This study used eddy covariance measurements of grassland net ecosystem productivity (NEP) from nine FLUXNET sites (73 site‐years of data) to investigate the relationships between the spring phenological changes (i.e., early green‐up, EGU; middle green‐up, MGU; and late green‐up, LGU) and the dynamics of carbon cycle (including NEP; ecosystem respiration, ER; and gross ecosystem production, GEP) at a ten‐day scale. Weak relationships were found between the spring phenological changes and the dynamics of ER at all sites. The advance of spring phenology mainly caused significant increases in GEP (or NEP) during the initial 20–50 d after the green‐up date at most sites. With an advancement of 1 d in EGU (MGU and LGU), GEP and NEP were increased by 1.5–6.0 (3.5–7.1 and 2.4–4.7) and 0.7–3.6 (1.5–3.9 and 1.9–4.7) g C/m2 during the early growing season (EGS), respectively. The advance of spring phenology did not have significant impacts on GEP (or NEP) during the middle and late growing season (MGS and LGS) at most sites, but yielded a significant decrease in GEP (or NEP) during MGS at a few sites. As the grasslands turning green, the duration of the impact of the changes in EGU, MGU, and LGU on GEP (or NEP) was reduced, whereas the magnitude of the impact of the changes on the ten‐day cumulative GEP (or NEP) was increased at most sites. Thus, there were two possible impact models for the spring phenological changes on the dynamics of carbon cycle for grasslands: The advance of spring phenology only increases the GEP (or NEP) during EGS, and the advance of spring phenology only decreases the GEP (or NEP) during MGS. These results could be helpful in further understanding the influences of spring phenological changes on the dynamics of carbon cycle for grasslands.

show abstract

Is the grass always greener? Land surface phenology reveals differences in peak and season‐long vegetation productivity responses to climate and management

Wood

Powell

Stoy

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Climate controls over the net carbon uptake period and amplitude of net ecosystem production in temperate and boreal ecosystems

Cited by 73 publications

References 83 publications

Interannual variability of ecosystem carbon exchange: From observation to prediction

Interannual variability of ecosystem carbon exchange: From observation to prediction

Seasonal differences in relationships between changes in spring phenology and dynamics of carbon cycle in grasslands

Is the grass always greener? Land surface phenology reveals differences in peak and season‐long vegetation productivity responses to climate and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About