Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation

Permanent URI for this community

https://hdl.handle.net/10919/23967

Browse

Browsing Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation by Subject "0401 Atmospheric Sciences"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Alternate Trait-Based Leaf Respiration Schemes Evaluated at Ecosystem-Scale Through Carbon Optimization Modeling and Canopy Property Data
    Thomas, R. Quinn; Williams, M.; Cavaleri, M. A.; Exbrayat, J. -F.; Smallman, T. L.; Street, L. E. (American Geophysical Union, 2019-12-25)
    Leaf maintenance respiration (Rleaf,m) is a major but poorly understood component of the terrestrial carbon cycle (C). Earth systems models (ESMs) use simple sub-models relating Rleaf,m to leaf traits, applied at canopy scale. Rleaf,m models vary depending on which leaf N traits they incorporate (e.g., mass or area based) and the form of relationship (linear or nonlinear). To simulate vegetation responses to global change, some ESMs include ecological optimization to identify canopy structures that maximize net C accumulation. However, the implications for optimization of using alternate leaf-scale empirical Rleaf,m models are undetermined. Here we combine alternate well-known empirical models of Rleaf,m with a process model of canopy photosynthesis. We quantify how net canopy exports of C vary with leaf area index (LAI) and total canopy N (TCN). Using data from tropical and arctic canopies, we show that estimates of canopy Rleaf,m vary widely among the three models. Using an optimization framework, we show that the LAI and TCN values maximizing C export depends strongly on the Rleaf,m model used. No single model could match observed arctic and tropical LAI-TCN patterns with predictions of optimal LAI-TCN. We recommend caution in using leaf-scale empirical models for components of ESMs at canopy-scale. Rleaf,m models may produce reasonable results for a specified LAI, but, due to their varied representations of Rleaf,mfoliar N sensitivity, are associated with different and potentially unrealistic optimization dynamics at canopy scale. We recommend ESMs to be evaluated using response surfaces of canopy C export in LAI-TCN space to understand and mitigate these risks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Beyond Static Benchmarking: Using Experimental Manipulations to Evaluate Land Model Assumptions
    Wieder, William R.; Lawrence, David M.; Fisher, Rosie A.; Bonan, Gordon B.; Cheng, Susan J.; Goodale, Christine L.; Grandy, A. Stuart; Koven, Charles D.; Lombardozzi, Danica L.; Oleson, Keith W.; Thomas, R. Quinn (American Geophysical Union, 2019-10-28)
    Land models are often used to simulate terrestrial responses to future environmental changes, but these models are not commonly evaluated with data from experimental manipulations. Results from experimental manipulations can identify and evaluate model assumptions that are consistent with appropriate ecosystem responses to future environmental change. We conducted simulations using three coupled carbon-nitrogen versions of the Community Land Model (CLM, versions 4, 4.5, and—the newly developed—5), and compared the simulated response to nitrogen (N) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) enrichment with meta-analyses of observations from similar experimental manipulations. In control simulations, successive versions of CLM showed a poleward increase in gross primary productivity and an overall bias reduction, compared to FLUXNET-MTE observations. Simulations with N and CO2 enrichment demonstrate that CLM transitioned from a model that exhibited strong nitrogen limitation of the terrestrial carbon cycle (CLM4) to a model that showed greater responsiveness to elevated concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (CLM5). Overall, CLM5 simulations showed better agreement with observed ecosystem responses to experimental N and CO2 enrichment than previous versions of the model. These simulations also exposed shortcomings in structural assumptions and parameterizations. Specifically, no version of CLM captures changes in plant physiology, allocation, and nutrient uptake that are likely important aspects of terrestrial ecosystems' responses to environmental change. These highlight priority areas that should be addressed in future model developments. Moving forward, incorporating results from experimental manipulations into model benchmarking tools that are used to evaluate model performance will help increase confidence in terrestrial carbon cycle projections.