Low Phosphorus Availability Decreases Susceptibility of Tropical Primary Productivity to Droughts

Goll, Daniel S.; Joetzjer, Émilie; Huang, Mengtian; Ciais, Philippe

doi:10.1029/2018gl077736

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(121 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have reported that the lack of dynamic root growth, hydrological redistribution, groundwater movement, and reasonable carbon allocation during droughts in models are potential causes responsible for larger estimation of vegetation response to water deficit (Hu et al, ; Li et al, ; Paschalis et al, ). For example, during Amazon droughts, trees can increase water use efficiency and uptake water from aquifer through deep roots to mitigate drought impacts (Goll et al, ; Yang et al, ). Thus, vegetation adaption strategies and more sophisticated hydrological processes need to be taken into consideration by TBMs to improve the simulation accuracy of the changed carbon flux during drought events.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Extreme Versus Carbon Extreme: Responses of Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes to Temperature and Precipitation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon fluxes at the land-atmosphere interface are strongly influenced by weather and climateconditions. Yet what is usually known as "climate extremes" does not always translate into very high or low carbon fluxes or so-called "carbon extremes." To reveal the patterns of how climate extremes influence terrestrial carbon fluxes, we analyzed the interannual variations in ecosystem carbon fluxes simulated by the Terrestrial Biosphere Models (TBMs) in the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. At the global level, TBMs simulated reduced ecosystem net primary productivity (NPP; 18.5 ± 9.3 g C m −2 yr −1 ), but enhanced heterotrophic respiration (Rh; 7 ± 4.6 g C m −2 yr −1 ) during extremely hot events. TBMs also simulated reduced NPP (60.9 ± 24.4 g C m −2 yr −1 ) and reduced Rh (16.5 ± 11.4 g C m −2 yr −1 ) during extreme dry events. Influences of precipitation extremes on terrestrial carbon uptake were larger in the arid/semiarid zones than other regions. During hot extremes, ecosystems in the low latitudes experienced a larger reduction in carbon uptake. However, a large fraction of carbon extremes did not occur in concert with either temperature or precipitation extremes. Rather these carbon extremes are likely to be caused by the interactive effects of the concurrent temperature and precipitation anomalies. The interactive effects showed considerable spatial variations with the largest effects on NPP in South America and Africa. Additionally, TBMs simulated a stronger sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to precipitation than satellite estimates. This study provides new insights into the complex ecosystem responses to climate extremes, especially the emergent properties of carbon dynamics resulting from compound climate extremes.Plain Language Summary Terrestrial ecosystems sequestrate a large amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to mitigate climate warming. Climate extremes, such as droughts and heatwaves, play a significant role in determining the capacity of land ecosystems in carbon uptake. In the past decades, terrestrial biosphere models have been widely used to investigate the magnitude and variations of carbon fluxes between land and the atmosphere. In this study, we attempted to understand how model-simulated carbon fluxes respond to climate anomalies and extremes at the global level and across regions. Analysis of model simulations showed significant spatial variations in the sensitivity of carbon fluxes to climate variations. Interestingly, concurrences of abnormal temperature and precipitation could have stronger impacts on carbon fluxes than individual temperature or precipitation extreme event. This study is important for better understanding climate extreme impacts on ecosystem dynamics and the global carbon cycle.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Extreme Versus Carbon Extreme: Responses of Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes to Temperature and Precipitation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8). The higher flux in the pCO 2 -based flux products than in the ocean models might be explained by a known lack of surface ocean pCO 2 observations in winter, when CO 2 outgassing occurs south of the Polar Front (Gray et al, 2018).…”

Section: Regional Distributionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Global Carbon Budget 2019

Friedlingstein

Jones

O’Sullivan

et al. 2019

Earth Syst. Sci. Data

Self Cite

1,302

762

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).

show abstract

“…But most importantly, our result under RCP6.0 reveals that CO 2 effect on carbon sink would saturate, suggesting the negative feedback of terrestrial ecosystems to climate warming has its upper threshold. In addition, the CO 2 -caused carbon sink may be further limited by nutrient availability, such as nitrogen limitation in high latitudes (Du et al, 2020; Y. P. Wang et al, 2011) and phosphorous in tropical regions (Du et al, 2020;Goll et al, 2018;Y. P. Wang et al, 2011).…”

Section: Co 2 -Caused Carbon Sinkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saturation of Global Terrestrial Carbon Sink Under a High Warming Scenario

Shi

Tian

Pan

et al. 2021

Global Biogeochemical Cycles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrestrial ecosystems have been serving as the largest natural carbon sink, particularly since the 1960s, sequestering over one fourth of anthropogenic emissions on average (Friedlingstein et al., 2019). Considering its importance in curbing climate warming (Friend et al., 2014;Schimel et al., 2015), accurately estimating this sink is critical for assessing mitigation policies and activities. A variety of tools, such as eddy covariance observation networks, atmospheric inversions, and terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs), have been developed to improve our understanding of the spatial and temporal patterns of the terrestrial carbon sink and the associated underlying mechanisms. Although significant advances have been achieved, for example in providing an annual updated global carbon budget (e.g., Friedlingstein et al., 2019;Le Quéré et al., 2018), the terrestrial carbon sink remains highly uncertain in terms of the responses of its trend and interannual variability (IAV) to atmospheric CO 2 increase, climate variability and other environmental factors (Bastos

show abstract

Low Phosphorus Availability Decreases Susceptibility of Tropical Primary Productivity to Droughts

Cited by 24 publications

References 78 publications

Climate Extreme Versus Carbon Extreme: Responses of Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes to Temperature and Precipitation

Climate Extreme Versus Carbon Extreme: Responses of Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes to Temperature and Precipitation

Global Carbon Budget 2019

Saturation of Global Terrestrial Carbon Sink Under a High Warming Scenario

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About