A New Process-Based Soil Methane Scheme:Evaluation Over Arctic Field Sites With the ISBA Land Surface Model

Permafrost soils and arctic wetlands methane emissions represent an important challenge for modeling the future climate. Here we present a process-based model designed to correctly represent the main thermal, hydrological, and biogeochemical processes related to these emissions for general land surface modeling. We propose a new multilayer soil carbon and gas module within the Interaction Soil-Biosphere-Atmosphere (ISBA) land-surface model (LSM). This module represents carbon pools, vertical carbon dynamics, and both oxic and anoxic organic matter decomposition. It also represents the soil gas processes for CH4, CO2, and O2 through the soil column. We base CH4 production and oxydation on an O2 control instead of the classical water table level strata approach used in state-of-the-art soil CH4 models. We propose a new parametrization of CH4 oxydation using recent field experiments and use an explicit O2 limitation for soil carbon decomposition. Soil gas transport is computed explicitly, using a revisited formulation of plant-mediated transport, a new representation of gas bulk diffusivity in porous media closer to experimental observations, and an innovative advection term for ebullition. We evaluate this advanced model on three climatically distinct sites : two in Greenland (Nuuk and Zackenberg) and one in Siberia (Chokurdakh). The model realistically reproduces methane and carbon dioxide emissions from both permafrosted and nonpermafrosted sites. The evolution and vertical characteristics of the underground processes leading to these fluxes are consistent with current knowledge. Results also show that physics is the main driver of methane fluxes, and the main source of variability appears to be the water table depth

Increase of Carbon Cycle Feedback with Climate Sensitivity: Results from a coupled Climate and Carbon Cycle Model

Coupled climate and carbon cycle modeling studies have shown that the feedback between global warming and the carbon cycle, in particular the terrestrial carbon cycle, could accelerate climate change and result in larger warming. In this paper, we investigate the sensitivity of this feedback for year-2100 global warming in the range of 0 K to 8 K. Differing climate sensitivities to increased CO{sub 2} content are imposed on the carbon cycle models for the same emissions. Emissions from the SRES A2 scenario are used. We use a fully-coupled climate and carbon cycle model, the INtegrated Climate and CArbon model (INCCA) the NCAR/DOE Parallel Coupled Model coupled to the IBIS terrestrial biosphere model and a modified-OCMIP ocean biogeochemistry model. In our model, for scenarios with year-2100 global warming increasing from 0 to 8 K, land uptake decreases from 47% to 29% of total CO{sub 2} emissions. Due to competing effects, ocean uptake (16%) shows almost no change at all. Atmospheric CO{sub 2} concentration increases were 48% higher in the run with 8 K global climate warming than in the case with no warming. Our results indicate that carbon cycle amplification of climate warming will be greater if there is higher climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO{sub 2} content; the carbon cycle feedback factor increases from 1.13 to 1.48 when global warming increases from 3.2 to 8 K

Uncertainties in climate responses to past land cover change: First results from the LUCID intercomparison study

Seven climate models were used to explore the biogeophysical impacts of human-induced land cover change (LCC) at regional and global scales. The imposed LCC led to statistically significant decreases in the northern hemisphere summer latent heat flux in three models, and increases in three models. Five models simulated statistically significant cooling in summer in near-surface temperature over regions of LCC and one simulated warming. There were few significant changes in precipitation. Our results show no common remote impacts of LCC. The lack of consistency among the seven models was due to: 1) the implementation of LCC despite agreed maps of agricultural land, 2) the representation of crop phenology, 3) the parameterisation of albedo, and 4) the representation of evapotranspiration for different land cover types. This study highlights a dilemma: LCC is regionally significant, but it is not feasible to impose a common LCC across multiple models for the next IPCC assessment

The SURFEXv7.2 land and ocean surface platform for coupled or offline simulation of Earth surface variables and fluxes

CC Attribution 3.0 License.Final revised paper also available at http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/6/929/2013/gmd-6-929-2013.pdfInternational audienceSURFEX is a new externalized land and ocean surface platform that describes the surface fluxes and the evolution of four types of surface: nature, town, inland water and ocean. It can be run either coupled or in offline mode. It is mostly based on pre-existing, well validated scientific models. It can be used in offline mode (from point scale to global runs) or fully coupled with an atmospheric model. SURFEX is able to simulate fluxes of carbon dioxide, chemical species, continental aerosols, sea salt and snow particles. It also includes a data assimilation module. The main principles of the organization of the surface are described first. Then, a survey is made of the scientific module (including the coupling strategy). Finally the main applications of the code are summarized. The current applications are extremely diverse, ranging from surface monitoring and hydrology to numerical weather prediction and global climate simulations. The validation work undertaken shows that replacing the pre-existing surface models by SURFEX in these applications is usually associated with improved skill, as the numerous scientific developments contained in this community code are used to good advantage

Effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen deposition on early to mid-term stage litter decomposition across biomes

Litter decomposition is a key process for carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and is mainly controlled by environmental conditions, substrate quantity and quality as well as microbial community abundance and composition. In particular, the effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on litter decomposition and its temporal dynamics are of significant importance, since their effects might change over the course of the decomposition process. Within the TeaComposition initiative, we incubated Green and Rooibos teas at 524 sites across nine biomes. We assessed how macroclimate and atmospheric inorganic N deposition under current and predicted scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 8.5) might affect litter mass loss measured after 3 and 12 months. Our study shows that the early to mid-term mass loss at the global scale was affected predominantly by litter quality (explaining 73% and 62% of the total variance after 3 and 12 months, respectively) followed by climate and N deposition. The effects of climate were not litter-specific and became increasingly significant as decomposition progressed, with MAP explaining 2% and MAT 4% of the variation after 12 months of incubation. The effect of N deposition was litter-specific, and significant only for 12-month decomposition of Rooibos tea at the global scale. However, in the temperate biome where atmospheric N deposition rates are relatively high, the 12-month mass loss of Green and Rooibos teas decreased significantly with increasing N deposition, explaining 9.5% and 1.1% of the variance, respectively. The expected changes in macroclimate and N deposition at the global scale by the end of this century are estimated to increase the 12-month mass loss of easily decomposable litter by 1.1-3.5% and of the more stable substrates by 3.8-10.6%, relative to current mass loss. In contrast, expected changes in atmospheric N deposition will decrease the mid-term mass loss of high-quality litter by 1.4-2.2% and that of low-quality litter by 0.9-1.5% in the temperate biome. Our results suggest that projected increases in N deposition may have the capacity to dampen the climate-driven increases in litter decomposition depending on the biome and decomposition stage of substrate

Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

The observed global net land carbon sink is captured by current land models. All models agree that atmospheric CO$_{2}$ and nitrogen deposition driven gains in carbon stocks are partially offset by climate and land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) losses. However, there is a lack of consensus in the partitioning of the sink between vegetation and soil, where models do not even agree on the direction of change in carbon stocks over the past 60 years. This uncertainty is driven by plant productivity, allocation, and turnover response to atmospheric CO$_{2}$ (and to a smaller extent to LULCC), and the response of soil to LULCC (and to a lesser extent climate). Overall, differences in turnover explain ~70% of model spread in both vegetation and soil carbon changes. Further analysis of internal plant and soil (individual pools) cycling is needed to reduce uncertainty in the controlling processes behind the global land carbon sink

Effects of Climate and Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition on Early to Mid-Term Stage Litter Decomposition Across Biomes

open263siWe acknowledge support by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the German Research Foundation (FZT 118), Scientific Grant Agency VEGA(GrantNo.2/0101/18), as well as by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (Grant Agreement No. 677232)Litter decomposition is a key process for carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and is mainly controlled by environmental conditions, substrate quantity and quality as well as microbial community abundance and composition. In particular, the effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on litter decomposition and its temporal dynamics are of significant importance, since their effects might change over the course of the decomposition process. Within the TeaComposition initiative, we incubated Green and Rooibos teas at 524 sites across nine biomes. We assessed how macroclimate and atmospheric inorganic N deposition under current and predicted scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 8.5) might affect litter mass loss measured after 3 and 12 months. Our study shows that the early to mid-term mass loss at the global scale was affected predominantly by litter quality (explaining 73% and 62% of the total variance after 3 and 12 months, respectively) followed by climate and N deposition. The effects of climate were not litter-specific and became increasingly significant as decomposition progressed, with MAP explaining 2% and MAT 4% of the variation after 12 months of incubation. The effect of N deposition was litter-specific, and significant only for 12-month decomposition of Rooibos tea at the global scale. However, in the temperate biome where atmospheric N deposition rates are relatively high, the 12-month mass loss of Green and Rooibos teas decreased significantly with increasing N deposition, explaining 9.5% and 1.1% of the variance, respectively. The expected changes in macroclimate and N deposition at the global scale by the end of this century are estimated to increase the 12-month mass loss of easily decomposable litter by 1.1-3.5% and of the more stable substrates by 3.8-10.6%, relative to current mass loss. In contrast, expected changes in atmospheric N deposition will decrease the mid-term mass loss of high-quality litter by 1.4-2.2% and that of low-quality litter by 0.9-1.5% in the temperate biome. Our results suggest that projected increases in N deposition may have the capacity to dampen the climate-driven increases in litter decomposition depending on the biome and decomposition stage of substrate.openKwon T.; Shibata H.; Kepfer-Rojas S.; Schmidt I.K.; Larsen K.S.; Beier C.; Berg B.; Verheyen K.; Lamarque J.-F.; Hagedorn F.; Eisenhauer N.; Djukic I.; Caliman A.; Paquette A.; Gutierrez-Giron A.; Petraglia A.; Augustaitis A.; Saillard A.; Ruiz-Fernandez A.C.; Sousa A.I.; Lillebo A.I.; Da Rocha Gripp A.; Lamprecht A.; Bohner A.; Francez A.-J.; Malyshev A.; Andric A.; Stanisci A.; Zolles A.; Avila A.; Virkkala A.-M.; Probst A.; Ouin A.; Khuroo A.A.; Verstraeten A.; Stefanski A.; Gaxiola A.; Muys B.; Gozalo B.; Ahrends B.; Yang B.; Erschbamer B.; Rodriguez Ortiz C.E.; Christiansen C.T.; Meredieu C.; Mony C.; Nock C.; Wang C.-P.; Baum C.; Rixen C.; Delire C.; Piscart C.; Andrews C.; Rebmann C.; Branquinho C.; Jan D.; Wundram D.; Vujanovic D.; Adair E.C.; Ordonez-Regil E.; Crawford E.R.; Tropina E.F.; Hornung E.; Groner E.; Lucot E.; Gacia E.; Levesque E.; Benedito E.; Davydov E.A.; Bolzan F.P.; Maestre F.T.; Maunoury-Danger F.; Kitz F.; Hofhansl F.; Hofhansl G.; De Almeida Lobo F.; Souza F.L.; Zehetner F.; Koffi F.K.; Wohlfahrt G.; Certini G.; Pinha G.D.; Gonzlez G.; Canut G.; Pauli H.; Bahamonde H.A.; Feldhaar H.; Jger H.; Serrano H.C.; Verheyden H.; Bruelheide H.; Meesenburg H.; Jungkunst H.; Jactel H.; Kurokawa H.; Yesilonis I.; Melece I.; Van Halder I.; Quiros I.G.; Fekete I.; Ostonen I.; Borovsk J.; Roales J.; Shoqeir J.H.; Jean-Christophe Lata J.; Probst J.-L.; Vijayanathan J.; Dolezal J.; Sanchez-Cabeza J.-A.; Merlet J.; Loehr J.; Von Oppen J.; Loffler J.; Benito Alonso J.L.; Cardoso-Mohedano J.-G.; Penuelas J.; Morina J.C.; Quinde J.D.; Jimnez J.J.; Alatalo J.M.; Seeber J.; Kemppinen J.; Stadler J.; Kriiska K.; Van Den Meersche K.; Fukuzawa K.; Szlavecz K.; Juhos K.; Gerhtov K.; Lajtha K.; Jennings K.; Jennings J.; Ecology P.; Hoshizaki K.; Green K.; Steinbauer K.; Pazianoto L.; Dienstbach L.; Yahdjian L.; Williams L.J.; Brigham L.; Hanna L.; Hanna H.; Rustad L.; Morillas L.; Silva Carneiro L.; Di Martino L.; Villar L.; Fernandes Tavares L.A.; Morley M.; Winkler M.; Lebouvier M.; Tomaselli M.; Schaub M.; Glushkova M.; Torres M.G.A.; De Graaff M.-A.; Pons M.-N.; Bauters M.; Mazn M.; Frenzel M.; Wagner M.; Didion M.; Hamid M.; Lopes M.; Apple M.; Weih M.; Mojses M.; Gualmini M.; Vadeboncoeur M.; Bierbaumer M.; Danger M.; Scherer-Lorenzen M.; Ruek M.; Isabellon M.; Di Musciano M.; Carbognani M.; Zhiyanski M.; Puca M.; Barna M.; Ataka M.; Luoto M.; H. Alsafaran M.; Barsoum N.; Tokuchi N.; Korboulewsky N.; Lecomte N.; Filippova N.; Hlzel N.; Ferlian O.; Romero O.; Pinto-Jr O.; Peri P.; Dan Turtureanu P.; Haase P.; Macreadie P.; Reich P.B.; Petk P.; Choler P.; Marmonier P.; Ponette Q.; Dettogni Guariento R.; Canessa R.; Kiese R.; Hewitt R.; Weigel R.; Kanka R.; Cazzolla Gatti R.; Martins R.L.; Ogaya R.; Georges R.; Gaviln R.G.; Wittlinger S.; Puijalon S.; Suzuki S.; Martin S.; Anja S.; Gogo S.; Schueler S.; Drollinger S.; Mereu S.; Wipf S.; Trevathan-Tackett S.; Stoll S.; Lfgren S.; Trogisch S.; Seitz S.; Glatzel S.; Venn S.; Dousset S.; Mori T.; Sato T.; Hishi T.; Nakaji T.; Jean-Paul T.; Camboulive T.; Spiegelberger T.; Scholten T.; Mozdzer T.J.; Kleinebecker T.; Runk T.; Ramaswiela T.; Hiura T.; Enoki T.; Ursu T.-M.; Di Cella U.M.; Hamer U.; Klaus V.; Di Cecco V.; Rego V.; Fontana V.; Piscov V.; Bretagnolle V.; Maire V.; Farjalla V.; Pascal V.; Zhou W.; Luo W.; Parker W.; Parker P.; Kominam Y.; Kotrocz Z.; Utsumi Y.Kwon T.; Shibata H.; Kepfer-Rojas S.; Schmidt I.K.; Larsen K.S.; Beier C.; Berg B.; Verheyen K.; Lamarque J.-F.; Hagedorn F.; Eisenhauer N.; Djukic I.; Caliman A.; Paquette A.; Gutierrez-Giron A.; Petraglia A.; Augustaitis A.; Saillard A.; Ruiz-Fernandez A.C.; Sousa A.I.; Lillebo A.I.; Da Rocha Gripp A.; Lamprecht A.; Bohner A.; Francez A.-J.; Malyshev A.; Andric A.; Stanisci A.; Zolles A.; Avila A.; Virkkala A.-M.; Probst A.; Ouin A.; Khuroo A.A.; Verstraeten A.; Stefanski A.; Gaxiola A.; Muys B.; Gozalo B.; Ahrends B.; Yang B.; Erschbamer B.; Rodriguez Ortiz C.E.; Christiansen C.T.; Meredieu C.; Mony C.; Nock C.; Wang C.-P.; Baum C.; Rixen C.; Delire C.; Piscart C.; Andrews C.; Rebmann C.; Branquinho C.; Jan D.; Wundram D.; Vujanovic D.; Adair E.C.; Ordonez-Regil E.; Crawford E.R.; Tropina E.F.; Hornung E.; Groner E.; Lucot E.; Gacia E.; Levesque E.; Benedito E.; Davydov E.A.; Bolzan F.P.; Maestre F.T.; Maunoury-Danger F.; Kitz F.; Hofhansl F.; Hofhansl G.; De Almeida Lobo F.; Souza F.L.; Zehetner F.; Koffi F.K.; Wohlfahrt G.; Certini G.; Pinha G.D.; Gonzlez G.; Canut G.; Pauli H.; Bahamonde H.A.; Feldhaar H.; Jger H.; Serrano H.C.; Verheyden H.; Bruelheide H.; Meesenburg H.; Jungkunst H.; Jactel H.; Kurokawa H.; Yesilonis I.; Melece I.; Van Halder I.; Quiros I.G.; Fekete I.; Ostonen I.; Borovsk J.; Roales J.; Shoqeir J.H.; Jean-Christophe Lata J.; Probst J.-L.; Vijayanathan J.; Dolezal J.; Sanchez-Cabeza J.-A.; Merlet J.; Loehr J.; Von Oppen J.; Loffler J.; Benito Alonso J.L.; Cardoso-Mohedano J.-G.; Penuelas J.; Morina J.C.; Quinde J.D.; Jimnez J.J.; Alatalo J.M.; Seeber J.; Kemppinen J.; Stadler J.; Kriiska K.; Van Den Meersche K.; Fukuzawa K.; Szlavecz K.; Juhos K.; Gerhtov K.; Lajtha K.; Jennings K.; Jennings J.; Ecology P.; Hoshizaki K.; Green K.; Steinbauer K.; Pazianoto L.; Dienstbach L.; Yahdjian L.; Williams L.J.; Brigham L.; Hanna L.; Hanna H.; Rustad L.; Morillas L.; Silva Carneiro L.; Di Martino L.; Villar L.; Fernandes Tavares L.A.; Morley M.; Winkler M.; Lebouvier M.; Tomaselli M.; Schaub M.; Glushkova M.; Torres M.G.A.; De Graaff M.-A.; Pons M.-N.; Bauters M.; Mazn M.; Frenzel M.; Wagner M.; Didion M.; Hamid M.; Lopes M.; Apple M.; Weih M.; Mojses M.; Gualmini M.; Vadeboncoeur M.; Bierbaumer M.; Danger M.; Scherer-Lorenzen M.; Ruek M.; Isabellon M.; Di Musciano M.; Carbognani M.; Zhiyanski M.; Puca M.; Barna M.; Ataka M.; Luoto M.; H. Alsafaran M.; Barsoum N.; Tokuchi N.; Korboulewsky N.; Lecomte N.; Filippova N.; Hlzel N.; Ferlian O.; Romero O.; Pinto-Jr O.; Peri P.; Dan Turtureanu P.; Haase P.; Macreadie P.; Reich P.B.; Petk P.; Choler P.; Marmonier P.; Ponette Q.; Dettogni Guariento R.; Canessa R.; Kiese R.; Hewitt R.; Weigel R.; Kanka R.; Cazzolla Gatti R.; Martins R.L.; Ogaya R.; Georges R.; Gaviln R.G.; Wittlinger S.; Puijalon S.; Suzuki S.; Martin S.; Anja S.; Gogo S.; Schueler S.; Drollinger S.; Mereu S.; Wipf S.; Trevathan-Tackett S.; Stoll S.; Lfgren S.; Trogisch S.; Seitz S.; Glatzel S.; Venn S.; Dousset S.; Mori T.; Sato T.; Hishi T.; Nakaji T.; Jean-Paul T.; Camboulive T.; Spiegelberger T.; Scholten T.; Mozdzer T.J.; Kleinebecker T.; Runk T.; Ramaswiela T.; Hiura T.; Enoki T.; Ursu T.-M.; Di Cella U.M.; Hamer U.; Klaus V.; Di Cecco V.; Rego V.; Fontana V.; Piscov V.; Bretagnolle V.; Maire V.; Farjalla V.; Pascal V.; Zhou W.; Luo W.; Parker W.; Parker P.; Kominam Y.; Kotrocz Z.; Utsumi Y

Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

This is the final version. Available on open access from Nature Research via the DOI in this recordData availability: All code and post-processed data generated in this study are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6884342. The raw model output is available at the following sftp site: [email protected]. Access will be granted by first contacting Stephen Sitch ([email protected]).The observed global net land carbon sink is captured by current land models. All models agree that atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen deposition driven gains in carbon stocks are partially offset by climate and land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) losses. However, there is a lack of consensus in the partitioning of the sink between vegetation and soil, where models do not even agree on the direction of change in carbon stocks over the past 60 years. This uncertainty is driven by plant productivity, allocation, and turnover response to atmospheric CO2 (and to a smaller extent to LULCC), and the response of soil to LULCC (and to a lesser extent climate). Overall, differences in turnover explain ~70% of model spread in both vegetation and soil carbon changes. Further analysis of internal plant and soil (individual pools) cycling is needed to reduce uncertainty in the controlling processes behind the global land carbon sink.European Union Horizon 202