The handbook for standardized field and laboratory measurements in terrestrial climate change experiments and observational studies (ClimEx)

1. Climate change is a world‐wide threat to biodiversity and ecosystem structure, functioning and services. To understand the underlying drivers and mechanisms, and to predict the consequences for nature and people, we urgently need better understanding of the direction and magnitude of climate change impacts across the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. An increasing number of climate change studies are creating new opportunities for meaningful and high‐quality generalizations and improved process understanding. However, significant challenges exist related to data availability and/or compatibility across studies, compromising opportunities for data re‐use, synthesis and upscaling. Many of these challenges relate to a lack of an established ‘best practice’ for measuring key impacts and responses. This restrains our current understanding of complex processes and mechanisms in terrestrial ecosystems related to climate change. 2. To overcome these challenges, we collected best‐practice methods emerging from major ecological research networks and experiments, as synthesized by 115 experts from across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Our handbook contains guidance on the selection of response variables for different purposes, protocols for standardized measurements of 66 such response variables and advice on data management. Specifically, we recommend a minimum subset of variables that should be collected in all climate change studies to allow data re‐use and synthesis, and give guidance on additional variables critical for different types of synthesis and upscaling. The goal of this community effort is to facilitate awareness of the importance and broader application of standardized methods to promote data re‐use, availability, compatibility and transparency. We envision improved research practices that will increase returns on investments in individual research projects, facilitate second‐order research outputs and create opportunities for collaboration across scientific communities. Ultimately, this should significantly improve the quality and impact of the science, which is required to fulfil society's needs in a changing world

Mean annual precipitation predicts primary production resistance and resilience to extreme drought

Extreme drought is increasing in frequency and intensity in many regions globally, with uncertain consequences for the resistance and resilience of ecosystem functions, including primary production. Primary production resistance, the capacity to withstand change during extreme drought, and resilience, the degree to which production recovers, vary among and within ecosystem types, obscuring generalized patterns of ecological stability. Theory and many observations suggest forest production is more resistant but less resilient than grassland production to extreme drought; however, studies of production sensitivity to precipitation variability indicate that the processes controlling resistance and resilience may be influenced more by mean annual precipitation (MAP) than ecosystem type. Here, we conducted a global meta-analysis to investigate primary production resistance and resilience to extreme drought in 64 forests and grasslands across a broad MAP gradient. We found resistance to extreme drought was predicted by MAP; however, grasslands (positive) and forests (negative) exhibited opposing resilience relationships with MAP. Our findings indicate that common plant physiological mechanisms may determine grassland and forest resistance to extreme drought, whereas differences among plant residents in turnover time, plant architecture, and drought adaptive strategies likely underlie divergent resilience patterns. The low resistance and resilience of dry grasslands suggests that these ecosystems are the most vulnerable to extreme drought – a vulnerability that is expected to compound as extreme drought frequency increases in the future

Carbon and nitrogen balances for six shrublands across Europe

Shrublands constitute significant and important parts of European landscapes providing a large number of important ecosystem services. Biogeochemical cycles in these ecosystems have gained little attention relative to forests and grassland systems, but data on such cycles are required for developing and testing ecosystem models. As climate change progresses, the potential feedback from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere through changes in carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and general knowledge on biogeochemical cycles becomes increasingly important. Here we present carbon and nitrogen balances of six shrublands along a climatic gradient across the European continent. The aim of the study was to provide a basis for assessing the range and variability in carbon storage in European shrublands. Across the sites the net carbon storage in the systems ranged from 1,163 g C m−2 to 18,546 g C m−2, and the systems ranged from being net sinks (126 g C m−2 a−1) to being net sources (−536 g C m−2 a−1) of carbon with the largest storage and sink of carbon at wet and cold climatic conditions. The soil carbon store dominates the carbon budget at all sites and in particular at the site with a cold and wet climate where soil C constitutes 95% of the total carbon in the ecosystem. Respiration of carbon from the soil organic matter pool dominated the carbon loss at all sites while carbon loss from aboveground litter decomposition appeared less important. Total belowground carbon allocation was more than 5 times aboveground litterfall carbon which is significantly greater than the factor of 2 reported in a global analysis of forest data. Nitrogen storage was also dominated by the soil pools generally showing small losses except when atmospheric N input was high. The study shows that in the future a climate-driven land cover change between grasslands and shrublands in Europe will likely lead to increased ecosystem C where shrublands are promoted and less where grasses are promoted. However, it also emphasizes that if feedbacks on the global carbon cycle are to be predicted it is critically important to quantify and understand belowground carbon allocation and processes as well as soil carbon pools, particularly on wet organic soils, rather than plant functional change as the soil stores dominate the overall budget and fluxes of carbon