2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Ambitions Outpace Observations of Forest Carbon Allocation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With respect to all three of these sources of uncertainty—climate effects, disturbance and demographic processes, and CO2 fertilization—adding tree rings to NFIs strengthens the empirical foundation for improving models and scaling of carbon dynamics from leaf to globe (Fisher et al 2018 , Kannenberg et al 2019 ). At the scale of individual trees, tree rings form an obvious basis for parameterizing and validating next-generation mechanistic models of tree growth that explicitly represent wood formation—a key line of inquiry to help understand whether tree growth is controlled by photosynthesis (is source limited) or if in fact photosynthesis is controlled by the conditions needed to support growth, such as adequate turgor pressure (growth is sink limited; Körner 2013 , Fatichi et al 2014 , Körner 2015 , Sass-Klaassen 2015 , Friend et al 2019 , Babst et al 2020 ), the latter of which would fundamentally undermine the notion of CO2 fertilization and the prediction of a strong forest carbon sink in the coming decades. Tree-ring data have been and are being used to estimate biomass increment at the forest stand level and forest ecosystem fluxes (Dye et al 2016 , Metsaranta et al 2018 , Metsaranta 2019 ), demonstrating the feasibility of forest carbon scaling from tree rings.…”
Section: Carbon Cycle Uncertainties Carbon Accounting and Atmospheric...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With respect to all three of these sources of uncertainty—climate effects, disturbance and demographic processes, and CO2 fertilization—adding tree rings to NFIs strengthens the empirical foundation for improving models and scaling of carbon dynamics from leaf to globe (Fisher et al 2018 , Kannenberg et al 2019 ). At the scale of individual trees, tree rings form an obvious basis for parameterizing and validating next-generation mechanistic models of tree growth that explicitly represent wood formation—a key line of inquiry to help understand whether tree growth is controlled by photosynthesis (is source limited) or if in fact photosynthesis is controlled by the conditions needed to support growth, such as adequate turgor pressure (growth is sink limited; Körner 2013 , Fatichi et al 2014 , Körner 2015 , Sass-Klaassen 2015 , Friend et al 2019 , Babst et al 2020 ), the latter of which would fundamentally undermine the notion of CO2 fertilization and the prediction of a strong forest carbon sink in the coming decades. Tree-ring data have been and are being used to estimate biomass increment at the forest stand level and forest ecosystem fluxes (Dye et al 2016 , Metsaranta et al 2018 , Metsaranta 2019 ), demonstrating the feasibility of forest carbon scaling from tree rings.…”
Section: Carbon Cycle Uncertainties Carbon Accounting and Atmospheric...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TLS has the potential to discriminate equifinal model simulations with similar land fluxes but contrasting structure. On-site trait measurements (Figure 7) could further help avoid those risks of equifinality (Babst et al 2020;Peaucelle et al 2019).…”
Section: Model Equifinalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While studies based on calibrated DVMs have uncovered spatial and temporal variations in forest productivity along large environmental gradients, they have rarely addressed variation in growth rates and the relative importance of environmental growth constraints at fine spatial resolution (~1 km 2 ). This is, in part, because many DVMs have relatively simplistic schemes of disentangling the impact of climatic factors on growth (Sitch et al., 2015), which challenges sub‐seasonal assessments of tree growth and its climatic drivers (Babst et al., 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%