Effects of Mineral Nutrition on Root Growth of Crop Plants

doi:10.1201/b12365-8

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vegetation distribution in JSBACH is represented by 12 plant functional types (PFTs), of which 8 are natural types (4 forest types, 2 shrub types, 2 grass types (C3 and C4)) and 4 are anthropogenic types (C3 and C4 pastures and crops). The PFTs differ with respect to their phenology, albedo, and photosynthetic parameters; photosynthesis is based on Farquhar et al (1980) for C3 plants and Collatz et al (1992) for C4 plants. The carbon cycle model in JSBACH describes the carbon allocation, the storage in the vegetation and soils, and losses through respiration and natural disturbances.…”

Section: Carbon Cycle Model In Jsbachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil carbon response to land-use change: evaluation of a global vegetation model using observational meta-analyses

Nyawira

Nabel

Don³

et al. 2016

Biogeosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Global model estimates of soil carbon changes from past land-use changes remain uncertain. We develop an approach for evaluating dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) against existing observational meta-analyses of soil carbon changes following land-use change. Using the DGVM JSBACH, we perform idealized simulations where the entire globe is covered by one vegetation type, which then undergoes a land-use change to another vegetation type. We select the grid cells that represent the climatic conditions of the meta-analyses and compare the mean simulated soil carbon changes to the meta-analyses. Our simulated results show model agreement with the observational data on the direction of changes in soil carbon for some land-use changes, although the model simulated a generally smaller magnitude of changes. The conversion of crop to forest resulted in soil carbon gain of 10 % compared to a gain of 42 % in the data, whereas the forest-to-crop change resulted in a simulated loss of −15 % compared to −40 %. The model and the observational data disagreed for the conversion of crop to grasslands. The model estimated a small soil carbon loss (−4 %), while observational data indicate a 38 % gain in soil carbon for the same land-use change. These model deviations from the observations are substantially reduced by explicitly accounting for crop harvesting and ignoring burning in grasslands in the model. We conclude that our idealized simulation approach provides an appropriate framework for evaluating DGVMs against meta-analyses and that this evaluation helps to identify the causes of deviation of simulated soil carbon changes from the meta-analyses.

show abstract

Section: Carbon Cycle Model In Jsbachmentioning

confidence: 99%