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

Michael O'Sullivan; Pierre Friedlingstein; Stephen Sitch; Peter Anthoni; Almut Arneth; Vivek K. Arora; Vladislav Bastrikov; Christine Delire; Daniel S. Goll; Atul Jain; Etsushi Kato; Daniel Kennedy; Jürgen Knauer; Sebastian Lienert; Danica Lombardozzi; Patrick C. McGuire; Joe R. Melton; Julia E. M. S. Nabel; Julia Pongratz; Benjamin Poulter; Roland Séférian; Hanqin Tian; Nicolas Vuichard; Anthony P. Walker; Wenping Yuan; Xu Yue; Sönke Zaehle

doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8

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

Michael O'Sullivan, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Vladislav Bastrikov, Christine Delire, Daniel S. Goll, Atul Jain, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Benjamin PoulterRoland Séférian, Hanqin Tian, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle

Western Sydney University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Article number	4781
Number of pages	10
Journal	Nature Communications
Volume	13
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8
Publication status	Published - 2022

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Â© The Author(s) 2022. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Access to Document

10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8

Cite this

O'Sullivan, M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bastrikov, V., Delire, C., Goll, D. S., Jain, A., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Knauer, J., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Pongratz, J., ... Zaehle, S. (2022). Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 4781. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8

@article{8145add89cbf401b9a41e2a5ef6e59d5,

title = "Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink",

abstract = "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.",

author = "Michael O'Sullivan and Pierre Friedlingstein and Stephen Sitch and Peter Anthoni and Almut Arneth and Arora, {Vivek K.} and Vladislav Bastrikov and Christine Delire and Goll, {Daniel S.} and Atul Jain and Etsushi Kato and Daniel Kennedy and J{\"u}rgen Knauer and Sebastian Lienert and Danica Lombardozzi and McGuire, {Patrick C.} and Melton, {Joe R.} and Nabel, {Julia E. M. S.} and Julia Pongratz and Benjamin Poulter and Roland S{\'e}f{\'e}rian and Hanqin Tian and Nicolas Vuichard and Walker, {Anthony P.} and Wenping Yuan and Xu Yue and S{\"o}nke Zaehle",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

journal = "Nature Communications",

issn = "2041-1723",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "1",

}

O'Sullivan, M, Friedlingstein, P, Sitch, S, Anthoni, P, Arneth, A, Arora, VK, Bastrikov, V, Delire, C, Goll, DS, Jain, A, Kato, E, Kennedy, D, Knauer, J, Lienert, S, Lombardozzi, D, McGuire, PC, Melton, JR, Nabel, JEMS, Pongratz, J, Poulter, B, Séférian, R, Tian, H, Vuichard, N, Walker, AP, Yuan, W, Yue, X & Zaehle, S 2022, 'Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink', Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, 4781. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8

TY - JOUR

T1 - Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

AU - O'Sullivan, Michael

AU - Friedlingstein, Pierre

AU - Sitch, Stephen

AU - Anthoni, Peter

AU - Arneth, Almut

AU - Arora, Vivek K.

AU - Bastrikov, Vladislav

AU - Delire, Christine

AU - Goll, Daniel S.

AU - Jain, Atul

AU - Kato, Etsushi

AU - Kennedy, Daniel

AU - Knauer, Jürgen

AU - Lienert, Sebastian

AU - Lombardozzi, Danica

AU - McGuire, Patrick C.

AU - Melton, Joe R.

AU - Nabel, Julia E. M. S.

AU - Pongratz, Julia

AU - Poulter, Benjamin

AU - Séférian, Roland

AU - Tian, Hanqin

AU - Vuichard, Nicolas

AU - Walker, Anthony P.

AU - Yuan, Wenping

AU - Yue, Xu

AU - Zaehle, Sönke

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:72717

U2 - 10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8

DO - 10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8

M3 - Article

SN - 2041-1723

VL - 13

JO - Nature Communications

JF - Nature Communications

IS - 1

M1 - 4781

ER -

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

Abstract

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this