Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake

Green, Julia K.; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Berg, Alexis; Findell, Kirsten L.; Hagemann, Stefan; Lawrence, David M.; Gentine, Pierre

doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x

Cited by 458 publications

(296 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

278

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are consistent with previous studies indicating that spring hydrology has a strong influence on summer NEP in the boreal region (Yi et al, ) and that boreal forests may be increasingly vulnerable to drought (Dai, ) and more frequent and severe wildfires (Jolly et al, ) with continuing climate warming. Mounting evidence indicates that the effects of soil moisture on the carbon cycle are a major uncertainty in projecting future carbon–climate feedbacks (Green et al, ; Stocker et al, ; Trugman, Medvigy, Mankin, & Anderegg, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increased high‐latitude photosynthetic carbon gain offset by respiration carbon loss during an anomalous warm winter to spring transition

Liu

Kimball

Parazoo

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arctic and boreal ecosystems play an important role in the global carbon (C) budget, and whether they act as a future net C sink or source depends on climate and environmental change. Here, we used complementary in situ measurements, model simulations, and satellite observations to investigate the net carbon dioxide (CO2) seasonal cycle and its climatic and environmental controls across Alaska and northwestern Canada during the anomalously warm winter to spring conditions of 2015 and 2016 (relative to 2010–2014). In the warm spring, we found that photosynthesis was enhanced more than respiration, leading to greater CO2 uptake. However, photosynthetic enhancement from spring warming was partially offset by greater ecosystem respiration during the preceding anomalously warm winter, resulting in nearly neutral effects on the annual net CO2 balance. Eddy covariance CO2 flux measurements showed that air temperature has a primary influence on net CO2 exchange in winter and spring, while soil moisture has a primary control on net CO2 exchange in the fall. The net CO2 exchange was generally more moisture limited in the boreal region than in the Arctic tundra. Our analysis indicates complex seasonal interactions of underlying C cycle processes in response to changing climate and hydrology that may not manifest in changes in net annual CO2 exchange. Therefore, a better understanding of the seasonal response of C cycle processes may provide important insights for predicting future carbon–climate feedbacks and their consequences on atmospheric CO2 dynamics in the northern high latitudes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mounting evidence indicates that the effects of soil moisture on the carbon cycle are a major uncertainty in projecting future carbonclimate feedbacks (Green et al, 2019;Stocker et al, 2018;Trugman, Medvigy, Mankin, & Anderegg, 2018).…”

Section: Climate and Environmental Controls On Season Carbon Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

Increased high‐latitude photosynthetic carbon gain offset by respiration carbon loss during an anomalous warm winter to spring transition

Liu

Kimball

Parazoo

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SIF is mechanistically linked with the light reactions of photosynthesis and has shown close correspondence to GPP across many ecosystems (Frankenberg & Berry, 2018;Gu et al, 2019). As a result of the strong empirical and mechanistic relationship between SIF and GPP at the satellite scale, and confirmation of this at smaller scales (Liu, Guan, et al, 2017), we use SIF as an indicator of GPP (Byrne et al, 2018;Green et al, 2017Green et al, , 2019Parazoo et al, 2014). In particular, in the context of floods, the SIF signal is not impaired by surface spectral reflectance properties that are confounded by surface water inundation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Cropland Carbon Uptake Delayed and Reduced by 2019 Midwest Floods

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While large‐scale floods directly impact human lives and infrastructures, they also profoundly impact agricultural productivity. New satellite observations of vegetation activity and atmospheric CO2 offer the opportunity to quantify the effects of such extreme events on cropland carbon sequestration. Widespread flooding during spring and early summer 2019 induced conditions that delayed crop planting across the U.S. Midwest. As a result, satellite observations of solar‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence from TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument and Orbiting Carbon Observatory reveal a 16‐day shift in the seasonal cycle of photosynthesis relative to 2018, along with a 15% lower peak value. We estimate a reduction of 0.21 PgC in cropland gross primary productivity in June and July, partially compensated in August and September (+0.14 PgC). The extension of the 2019 growing season into late September is likely to have benefited from increased water availability and late‐season temperature. Ultimately, this change is predicted to reduce the crop productivity in the Midwest Corn/Soy belt by ~15% compared to 2018. Using an atmospheric transport model, we show that a decline of ~0.1 PgC in the net carbon uptake during June and July is consistent with observed CO2 enhancements of up to 10 ppm in the midday boundary layer from Atmospheric Carbon and Transport‐America aircraft and over 3 ppm in column‐averaged dry‐air mole fractions from Orbiting Carbon Observatory. This study quantifies the impact of floods on cropland productivity and demonstrates the potential of combining solar‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence with atmospheric CO2 observations to monitor regional carbon flux anomalies.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, SM plays a regulating even controlling role in the vegetation growth and crop yields by influencing soil environment such as soil heat capacity and soil water potential (Gao, Wu, Zhao, Wang, & Shi, 2014;Li et al, 2013). More importantly, a recent study has found that SM exerts a significant impact on the longterm uptake of terrestrial carbon (Green et al, 2019). Therefore, SM is an essential environmental factor and process parameter in studies on climate prediction, water resource management, agrometeorology, drought and flood disasters, and even soil organic carbon (Legates et al, 2011;Nicolai-Shaw, Gudmundsson, Hirschi, & Seneviratne, 2016;Xiao & Wang, 2009;Yuan et al, 2013), which stimulates a large demand for timely and accurate SM data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of soil moisture products from microwave remote sensing, land model, and reanalysis using global ground observations

Deng

Wang

Bai

et al. 2019

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-quality soil moisture (SM) datasets are in great demand for climate, hydrology, and other fields, but detailed evaluation of SM products from various sources is scarce. Thus, using 670 SM stations worldwide, we evaluated and compared SM products from microwave remote sensing [Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) (C-and X-bands) and European Space Agency's Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI)], land surface model [Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS)], and reanalysis data [ECMWF Re-Analysis-Interim (ERA-Interim) and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)] under different time scales and various climates and land covers. We find that: (a) ESA CCI and GLDAS have the closest values to the in situ SM on the annual scale, whereas others overestimate the SM; ERA-Interim (averaged R = 0.58) and ESA CCI (averaged R = 0.54) correlate best with the in situ data, while GLDAS performs worst. (b) Overall, the deviations of each product vary in seasons. ESA CCI and ERA-Interim products are closer to the in situ SM at seasonal scales, and AMSR-E and NCEP perform worst in December-February and June-August, respectively. (c) Except for NCEP and ERA-Interim, others can well reflect the intermonthly variation of the in situ SM. (d) Under various climates and land covers, AMSR-E products are less effective in cold climates, whereas GLDAS and NCEP products perform poorly in arid or temperate and dry climates. Moreover, the Bias and R of each SM product differobviously under different forest types, especially the AMSR-E products. In summary, SM from ESA CCI is the best, followed by ERA-Interim product, and precipitation is an important auxiliary data for selecting high-quality SM stations and improving the accuracy of SM from GLDAS. These results can provide a reference for improving the accuracy of the above SM products. K E Y W O R D S

show abstract

Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake

Cited by 458 publications

References 61 publications

Increased high‐latitude photosynthetic carbon gain offset by respiration carbon loss during an anomalous warm winter to spring transition

Increased high‐latitude photosynthetic carbon gain offset by respiration carbon loss during an anomalous warm winter to spring transition

Cropland Carbon Uptake Delayed and Reduced by 2019 Midwest Floods

Comparison of soil moisture products from microwave remote sensing, land model, and reanalysis using global ground observations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About