Nonsteady state carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems of China estimated by data assimilation

Abstract

[1] Carbon sequestration occurs only when terrestrial ecosystems are at nonsteady states. Despite of their ubiquity in the real world, the nonsteady states of ecosystems have not been well quantified, especially at regional and global scales. In this study, we developed a two-step data assimilation scheme to estimate carbon sink strength in China's forest ecosystems. Specifically, the two-step scheme consists of a steady state step and a nonsteady state step. In the steady state step, we constrained a process-based model (Terrestrial Ecosystem Regional (TECO-R) model) against biometric data (net primary production NPP, biomass, litter, and soil organic carbon) in mature forests. With a subset of the parameter values estimated from the steady state data assimilation being fixed, the nonsteady state data assimilation was performed to estimate carbon sequestration in China's forest ecosystems. Our results indicated that 17 out of the 22 total parameters in the TECO-R model were well constrained by the biometric data with the steady state data assimilation. When observations from both mature and developing forests were used, all the 10 parameters related to carbon sequestration in vegetation and soil carbon pools were well constrained at the nonsteady state step. The estimated mean vegetation carbon sink in China's forests is 89.7 ± 16.8 gC m À2 yr À1 , comparable with the values estimated from the forest inventory and other process-based regional models. The estimated mean soil and litter carbon sinks in China's forests are 14.1 ± 20.7 and 4.7 ± 6.5 gC m À2 yr À1. This study demonstrated that a two-step data assimilation scheme can be a potent tool to estimate regional carbon sequestration in nonsteady state ecosystems.

Microbial models with data‐driven parameters predict stronger soil carbon responses to climate change

“…This assumption may introduce inaccuracies in parameter estimation: Zhou et al . () illustrate that estimating parameters under the equilibrium assumption results in the underestimation of soil carbon residence times in comparison with parameter estimates made without the equilibrium assumption. This implies that parameter estimates in this study may underestimate the potential soil carbon sink and overestimate soil carbon losses under a climate change scenario.…”

Modeling Soil Processes: Review, Key Challenges, and New Perspectives

“…Sequential data assimilation has been the method of choice for model–data fusion in land surface modeling for more than a decade (e.g., Reichle et al, 2002) and more recently also for groundwater modeling (Chen and Zhang, 2006). In land surface modeling, this involves updating of soil moisture contents with remote sensing information, (e.g., Dunne et al, 2007), or in situ measurements (e.g., De Lannoy et al, 2007), and updating of soil carbon pools in biogeochemistry models, (e.g., Zhou et al, 2013). Soil parameters are in general not updated in those applications.…”

Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system models

“…The estimated SOC at the regional and global scales still have high mismatches at least partly due to the assumption that the training data represents soils in steady state [ Carvalhais et al , , ; Weng et al , ] and partly due to model structural errors (e.g., no representation of peatlands or wetlands). When parameters that quantify nonsteady states of the C cycle are estimated, the mismatches significantly decrease for both vegetation and soil C pools [ Zhou et al , ].…”

“…Recently, digital soil mapping techniques that include machine learning algorithms have been developed that draw on large soil profile databases and analyses of environmental covariates representing soil forming factors [ Arrouays et al , ; Hengl et al , ], leading to a much improved accuracy (e.g., r 2 = 0.61 for SOC content in Africa at 250 m resolution) [ Hengl et al , ]. Alternately, data assimilation can directly use spatially distributed data points [ Zhou et al , ], avoiding the uncertainty introduced by harmonization as required for HWSD‐type mapping approaches.…”