Ensemble modelling, uncertainty and robust predictions of organic carbon in long-term bare-fallow soils

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by the project “C and N models inter-comparison and improvement to assess management options for GHG mitigation in agro-systems worldwide” (CN-MIP, 2014- 2017), which received funding by a multi-partner call on agricultural greenhouse gas research of the Joint Programming Initiative ‘FACCE’ through national financing bodies. S. Recous, R. Farina, L. Brilli, G. Bellocchi and L. Bechini received mobility funding by way of the French Italian GALILEO programme (CLIMSOC project). The authors acknowledge particularly the data holders for the Long Term Bare-Fallows, who made their data available and provided additional information on the sites: V. Romanenkov, B.T. Christensen, T. Kätterer, S. Houot, F. van Oort, A. Mc Donald, as well as P. Barré. The input of B. Guenet and C. Chenu contributes to the ANR “Investissements d’avenir” programme with the reference CLAND ANR-16-CONV-0003. The input of P. Smith and C. Chenu contributes to the CIRCASA project, which received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no 774378 and the projects: DEVIL (NE/M021327/1) and Soils‐R‐GRREAT (NE/P019455/1). The input of B. Grant and W. Smith was funded by Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, under the scope of project J-001793. The input of A. Taghizadeh-Toosi was funded by Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark as part of the SINKS2 project. The input of M. Abdalla contributes to the SUPER-G project, which received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no 774124.Peer reviewedPostprin

Bridge to the future: Important lessons from 20 years of ecosystem observations made by the OzFlux network

In 2020, the Australian and New Zealand flux research and monitoring network, OzFlux, celebrated its 20th anniversary by reflecting on the lessons learned through two decades of ecosystem studies on global change biology. OzFlux is a network not only for ecosystem researchers, but also for those ‘next users’ of the knowledge, information and data that such networks provide. Here, we focus on eight lessons across topics of climate change and variability, disturbance and resilience, drought and heat stress and synergies with remote sensing and modelling. In distilling the key lessons learned, we also identify where further research is needed to fill knowledge gaps and improve the utility and relevance of the outputs from OzFlux. Extreme climate variability across Australia and New Zealand (droughts and flooding rains) provides a natural laboratory for a global understanding of ecosystems in this time of accelerating climate change. As evidence of worsening global fire risk emerges, the natural ability of these ecosystems to recover from disturbances, such as fire and cyclones, provides lessons on adaptation and resilience to disturbance. Drought and heatwaves are common occurrences across large parts of the region and can tip an ecosystem\u27s carbon budget from a net CO2 sink to a net CO2 source. Despite such responses to stress, ecosystems at OzFlux sites show their resilience to climate variability by rapidly pivoting back to a strong carbon sink upon the return of favourable conditions. Located in under-represented areas, OzFlux data have the potential for reducing uncertainties in global remote sensing products, and these data provide several opportunities to develop new theories and improve our ecosystem models. The accumulated impacts of these lessons over the last 20 years highlights the value of long-term flux observations for natural and managed systems. A future vision for OzFlux includes ongoing and newly developed synergies with ecophysiologists, ecologists, geologists, remote sensors and modellers

Bridge to the future: Important lessons from 20 years of ecosystem observations made by the OzFlux network

In 2020, the Australian and New Zealand flux research and monitoring network, OzFlux, celebrated its 20th anniversary by reflecting on the lessons learned through two decades of ecosystem studies on global change biology. OzFlux is a network not only for ecosystem researchers, but also for those ‘next users’ of the knowledge, information and data that such networks provide. Here, we focus on eight lessons across topics of climate change and variability, disturbance and resilience, drought and heat stress and synergies with remote sensing and modelling. In distilling the key lessons learned, we also identify where further research is needed to fill knowledge gaps and improve the utility and relevance of the outputs from OzFlux. Extreme climate variability across Australia and New Zealand (droughts and flooding rains) provides a natural laboratory for a global understanding of ecosystems in this time of accelerating climate change. As evidence of worsening global fire risk emerges, the natural ability of these ecosystems to recover from disturbances, such as fire and cyclones, provides lessons on adaptation and resilience to disturbance. Drought and heatwaves are common occurrences across large parts of the region and can tip an ecosystem's carbon budget from a net CO2 sink to a net CO2 source. Despite such responses to stress, ecosystems at OzFlux sites show their resilience to climate variability by rapidly pivoting back to a strong carbon sink upon the return of favourable conditions. Located in under-represented areas, OzFlux data have the potential for reducing uncertainties in global remote sensing products, and these data provide several opportunities to develop new theories and improve our ecosystem models. The accumulated impacts of these lessons over the last 20 years highlights the value of long-term flux observations for natural and managed systems. A future vision for OzFlux includes ongoing and newly developed synergies with ecophysiologists, ecologists, geologists, remote sensors and modellers.</p

Climate-change impact potentials as an alternative to global warming potentials

For policy applications, such as for the Kyoto Protocol, the climate-change contributions of different greenhouse gases are usually quantified through their global warming potentials. They are calculated based on the cumulative radiative forcing resulting from a pulse emission of a gas over a specified time period. However, these calculations are not explicitly linked to an assessment of ultimate climate-change impacts. A new metric, the climate-change impact potential (CCIP), is presented here that is based on explicitly defining the climate-change perturbations that lead to three different kinds of climate-change impacts. These kinds of impacts are: (1) those related directly to temperature increases; (2) those related to the rate of warming; and (3) those related to cumulative warming. From those definitions, a quantitative assessment of the importance of pulse emissions of each gas is developed, with each kind of impact assigned equal weight for an overall impact assessment. Total impacts are calculated under the RCP6 concentration pathway as a base case. The relevant climate-change impact potentials are then calculated as the marginal increase of those impacts over 100 years through the emission of an additional unit of each gas in 2010. These calculations are demonstrated for CO _2 , methane and nitrous oxide. Compared with global warming potentials, climate-change impact potentials would increase the importance of pulse emissions of long-lived nitrous oxide and reduce the importance of short-lived methane

How important is aerobic methane release by plants?

The first research paper describing aerobic methane release from living plants and dead organic matter was published in early 2006. These original findings have yet to be independently repeated and confirmed. Instead, the only other detailed study that has been published did not find any significant aerobic emissions of methane. Concerns remain about possible artefacts, especially with respect to methane adsorption and desorption. Several questions are yet to be answered, such as identification of a plausible biochemical mechanism for the process, how CH4 emissions might change with light, temperature or the physiological state of leaves, whether emissions change over time under constant conditions, whether they are related to photosynthesis and how they relate to the chemical composition of biomass. Various studies have assessed the likely magnitude of aerobic methane release within a global context. Different estimates based on mor