A constraint on historic growth in global photosynthesis due to increasing CO
Journal
Nature
ISSN: 1476-4687
Titre abrégé: Nature
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
09
07
2020
accepted:
05
10
2021
entrez:
9
12
2021
pubmed:
10
12
2021
medline:
15
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The global terrestrial carbon sink is increasing
Identifiants
pubmed: 34880429
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04096-9
pii: 10.1038/s41586-021-04096-9
doi:
Substances chimiques
Carbon Dioxide
142M471B3J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Retracted Publication
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
253-258Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : RetractionIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).
doi: 10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019
Ballantyne, A. P., Alden, C. B., Miller, J. B., Tans, P. P. & White, J. W. C. Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years. Nature 488, 70–72 (2012).
pubmed: 22859203
doi: 10.1038/nature11299
Sitch, S. et al. Recent trends and drivers of regional sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Biogeosciences 12, 653–679 (2015).
doi: 10.5194/bg-12-653-2015
Keenan, T. F. et al. Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO
pubmed: 27824333
pmcid: 5105171
doi: 10.1038/ncomms13428
Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. B. Effect of increasing CO
pubmed: 25548156
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407302112
Huntzinger, D. N. et al. Uncertainty in the response of terrestrial carbon sink to environmental drivers undermines carbon-climate feedback predictions. Sci. Rep. 7, 4765 (2017).
pubmed: 28684755
pmcid: 5500546
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03818-2
Walker, A. P. et al. Integrating the evidence for a terrestrial carbon sink caused by increasing atmospheric CO
Sun, Z. et al. Evaluating and comparing remote sensing terrestrial GPP models for their response to climate variability and CO
pubmed: 30856578
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.025
Smith, W. K. et al. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2879
Li, W. et al. Recent changes in global photosynthesis and terrestrial ecosystem respiration constrained from multiple observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1058–1068 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/2017GL076622
Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V. & Friedlingstein, P. Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO
pubmed: 27680704
doi: 10.1038/nature19772
Ehlers, I. et al Detecting long-term metabolic shifts using isotopomers: CO
pubmed: 26644588
pmcid: 4697390
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1504493112
Campbell, J. E. et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature 544, 84–87 (2017).
pubmed: 28382993
doi: 10.1038/nature22030
Eyring, V. et al. Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 102–110 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y
Winkler, A. J., Myneni, R. B. & Brovkin, V. Investigating the applicability of emergent constraints. Earth Syst. Dyn. 10, 501–523 (2019).
doi: 10.5194/esd-10-501-2019
Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C. & Klein, S. Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 269–278 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0436-6
Keenan, T. F. & Williams, C. A. The terrestrial carbon sink. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 219–243 (2018).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030204
Ryu, Y., Berry, J. A. & Baldocchi, D. D. What is global photosynthesis? History, uncertainties and opportunities. Remote Sens. Environ. 223, 95–114 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.01.016
Winkler, A. J., Myneni, R. B., Alexandrov, G. A. & Brovkin, V. Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes. Nat. Commun. 10, 95 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08633-z
Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO
pubmed: 15720649
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x
De Kauwe, M. G., Keenan, T. F., Medlyn, B. E., Prentice, I. C. & Terrer, C. Satellite based estimates underestimate the effect of CO
doi: 10.1038/nclimate3105
Cernusak, L. A. et al Robust response of terrestrial plants to rising CO
pubmed: 31104852
doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2019.04.003
Piao, S. et al. Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12187
Haverd, V. et al. Higher than expected CO
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14950
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00579.1
Zhao, F. et al. Role of CO
doi: 10.5194/bg-13-5121-2016
Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 405–448 (2018).
doi: 10.5194/essd-10-405-2018
Running, S. W. & Zhao, M. Daily GPP and Annual NPP (MOD17A2/A3) Products NASA Earth Observing System MODIS Land Algorithm User’s Guide v. 3 (MODIS Land Team, 2015).
Jung, M. et al. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations. J. Geophys. Res. 116, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001566 (2011).
Zeng, N. et al. Agricultural Green Revolution as a driver of increasing atmospheric CO
pubmed: 25409829
doi: 10.1038/nature13893
Long, S. P. Modification of the response of photosynthetic productivity to rising temperature by atmospheric CO
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01439.x
Stevens, N., Lehmann, C. E. R., Murphy, B. P. & Durigan, G. Savanna woody encroachment is widespread across three continents. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 235–244 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13409
Fleischer, K. et al. Amazon forest response to CO
doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0404-9
Myneni, R. B. et al. Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 214–231 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00074-3
Cernusak, L. A. et al. Tropical forest responses to increasing atmospheric CO
pubmed: 32481129
doi: 10.1071/FP12309
Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO
pubmed: 17263773
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x
Baig, S., Medlyn, B. E., Mercado, L. M. & Zaehle, S. Does the growth response of woody plants to elevated CO
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12962
Yang, J. et al. Low sensitivity of gross primary production to elevated CO
doi: 10.5194/bg-17-265-2020
McMurtrie, R. E., Comins, H. N., Kirschbaum, M. U. F. & Wang, Y. P. Modifying existing forest growth models to take account of effects of elevated CO
doi: 10.1071/BT9920657
Luo, Y., Sims, D. A., Thomas, R. B., Tissue, D. T. & Ball, J. T. Sensitivity of leaf photosynthesis to CO
doi: 10.1029/96GB00438
Li, Q. et al. Leaf area index identified as a major source of variability in modeled CO
doi: 10.5194/bg-15-6909-2018
Graven, H. D. et al. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO
pubmed: 23929948
doi: 10.1126/science.1239207
Zaehle, S. et al. Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon-nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate free-air CO
pubmed: 24467623
pmcid: 4288990
doi: 10.1111/nph.12697
De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO
pubmed: 24844873
pmcid: 4260117
doi: 10.1111/nph.12847
Stocker, B. D. et al Drought impacts on terrestrial primary production underestimated by satellite monitoring. Nat. Geosci. 12, 264–270 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0318-6
Williamson, M. S. et al Emergent constraints on climate sensitivities. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025004 (2021).
doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025004
Sanderson, B. et al. On structural errors in emergent constraints. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2020-85 (2021).
Fisher, J. B., Huntzinger, D. N., Schwalm, C. R. & Sitch, S. Modeling the terrestrial biosphere. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 91–123 (2014).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012913-093456
Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 earth system models. J. Clim. 26, 5289–5314 (2013).
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1
Ballantyne, A. et al. Accelerating net terrestrial carbon uptake during the warming hiatus due to reduced respiration. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 148–152 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate3204
Forkel, M. et al. Enhanced seasonal CO
pubmed: 26797146
doi: 10.1126/science.aac4971
Friedlingstein, P. et al. On the contribution of CO
doi: 10.1029/95GB02381
Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S. & Berry, J. A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO
pubmed: 24306196
doi: 10.1007/BF00386231
Myneni, R. B., Keeling, C. D., Tucker, C. J., Asrar, G. & Nemani, R. R. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386, 698–702 (1997).
doi: 10.1038/386698a0
Zhu, Z. et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 791–795 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate3004
Keenan, T. F. et al. Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499, 324–327 (2013).
pubmed: 23842499
doi: 10.1038/nature12291
Ukkola, A. M., Keenan, T. F., Kelley, D. I. & Prentice, I. C. Vegetation plays an important role in mediating future water resources. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 094022 (2016).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094022
Donohue, R. J., Roderick, M. L., McVicar, T. R. & Farquhar, G. D. Impact of CO
doi: 10.1002/grl.50563
Smith, N. G. & Dukes, J. S. Plant respiration and photosynthesis in global-scale models: incorporating acclimation to temperature and CO
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02797.x
De Kauwe, M. G. et al. A test of the ‘one-point method’ for estimating maximum carboxylation capacity from field-measured, light-saturated photosynthesis. New Phytol. 210, 1130–1144 (2016).
pubmed: 26719951
doi: 10.1111/nph.13815
Maire, V. et al. The coordination of leaf photosynthesis links C and N fluxes in C
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038345
Smith, N. G. & Keenan, T. F. Mechanisms underlying leaf photosynthetic acclimation to warming and elevated CO
Lloyd, J. & Farquhar, G. The CO
doi: 10.2307/2390258
Ehleringer, J. & Björkman, O. Quantum yields for CO
doi: 10.1104/pp.59.1.86
Bernacchi, C. J., Singsaas, E. L., Pimentel, C., Portis, A. R. Jr & Long, SP. Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant, Cell Environ. 24, 253–259 (2001).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2001.00668.x
Prentice, I. C., Dong, N., Gleason, S. M., Maire, V. & Wright, I. J. Balancing the costs of carbon gain and water transport: testing a new theoretical framework for plant functional ecology. Ecol. Lett. 17, 82–91 (2014).
pubmed: 24215231
doi: 10.1111/ele.12211
Wang, H. et al. Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants. Nat. Plants 3, 734–741 (2017).
pubmed: 29150690
doi: 10.1038/s41477-017-0006-8
Huber, M. L. et al. New international formulation for the viscosity of H
doi: 10.1063/1.3088050
Still, C. J., Berry, J. A., Collatz, G. J. & DeFries, R. S. Global distribution of C
doi: 10.1029/2001GB001807
Zhu, Z. et al. Global data sets of vegetation leaf area index (LAI)3g and fraction of photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR)3g derived from global inventory modeling and mapping studies (GIMMS) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI3g) for the period 1981 to 2. Remote Sens. 5, 927–948 (2013).
doi: 10.3390/rs5020927
Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science 329, 940–943 (2010).
pubmed: 20724633
doi: 10.1126/science.1192666
Gallego-Sala, A. et al. Bioclimatic envelope model of climate change impacts on blanket peatland distribution in Great Britain. Clim. Res. 45, 151–162 (2010).
doi: 10.3354/cr00911
Veroustraete, F. On the use of a simple deciduous forest model for the interpretation of climate change effects at the level of carbon dynamics. Ecol. Modell. 75–76, 221–237 (1994).
doi: 10.1016/0304-3800(94)90021-3
Jiang, C. & Ryu, Y. Multi-scale evaluation of global gross primary productivity and evapotranspiration products derived from Breathing Earth System Simulator (BESS). Remote Sens. Environ. 186, 528–547 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.08.030
Zhang, S. et al. Evaluation and improvement of the daily boreal ecosystem productivity simulator in simulating gross primary productivity at 41 flux sites across Europe. Ecol. Modell. 368, 205–232 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.11.023
Liu, Y., Hejazi, M., Li, H., Zhang, X. & Leng, G. A hydrological emulator for global applications-HE v1.0.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1077–1092 (2018).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-11-1077-2018
Yuan, W. et al. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth. Sci. Adv. 5, aax1396 (2019).
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax1396
Haverd, V. et al. A new version of the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2995–3026 (2018).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-11-2995-2018
Melton, J. R. & Arora, V. K. Competition between plant functional types in the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) v. 2.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 323–361 (2016).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-9-323-2016
Oleson, K. W. et al. Technical Description of Version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM) (National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2013).
Tian, H. et al. North American terrestrial CO
pubmed: 26005232
doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1072-9
Jain, A. K., Meiyappan, P., Song, Y. & House, J. I. CO
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12207
Reick, C. H., Raddatz, T., Brovkin, V. & Gayler, V. Representation of natural and anthropogenic land cover change in MPI-ESM. J. Adv. Model Earth Syst. 5, 459–482 (2013).
doi: 10.1002/jame.20022
Clark, D. B. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description—Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 701–722 (2011).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011
Smith, B. et al. Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences 11, 2027–2054 (2014).
doi: 10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014
Sitch, S. et al. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob. Chang. Biol. 9, 161–185 (2003).
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x
Keller, K. M. et al. 20th century changes in carbon isotopes and water-use efficiency: tree-ring-based evaluation of the CLM4.5 and LPX-Bern models. Biogeosciences 14, 2641–2673 (2017).
doi: 10.5194/bg-14-2641-2017
Krinner, G. et al. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB1015 (2005).
doi: 10.1029/2003GB002199
Guimberteau, M. et al. ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model description and validation. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 121–163 (2018).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018
Zeng, N., Mariotti, A. & Wetzel, P. Terrestrial mechanisms of interannual CO
Kato, E., Kinoshita, T., Ito, A., Kawamiya, M. & Yamagata, Y. Evaluation of spatially explicit emission scenario of land-use change and biomass burning using a process-based biogeochemical model. J. Land Use Sci. 8, 104–122 (2013).
doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2011.628705
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Atmospheric deposition, CO
pubmed: 28851977
pmcid: 5574890
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08755-8
Ciais, P. et al. Large inert carbon pool in the terrestrial biosphere during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nat. Geosci. 5, 74–79 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/ngeo1324
Cheng, L. et al. Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nat. Commun. 8, 110 (2017).
pubmed: 28740122
pmcid: 5524649
doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00114-5
Ueyama, M. et al. Inferring CO
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e5
Pastorello, G. et al. The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data. Sci. Data 7, 225 (2020).
pubmed: 32647314
pmcid: 7347557
doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-0534-3