Browsing by Author "Dietze, Michael C"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon-nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate Free-Air CO2 Enrichment studies.
    (The New phytologist, 2014-05) Zaehle, Sönke; Medlyn, Belinda E; De Kauwe, Martin G; Walker, Anthony P; Dietze, Michael C; Hickler, Thomas; Luo, Yiqi; Wang, Ying-Ping; El-Masri, Bassil; Thornton, Peter; Jain, Atul; Wang, Shusen; Warlind, David; Weng, Ensheng; Parton, William; Iversen, Colleen M; Gallet-Budynek, Anne; McCarthy, Heather; Finzi, Adrien; Hanson, Paul J; Prentice, I Colin; Oren, Ram; Norby, Richard J
    We analysed the responses of 11 ecosystem models to elevated atmospheric [CO2 ] (eCO2 ) at two temperate forest ecosystems (Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments) to test alternative representations of carbon (C)-nitrogen (N) cycle processes. We decomposed the model responses into component processes affecting the response to eCO2 and confronted these with observations from the FACE experiments. Most of the models reproduced the observed initial enhancement of net primary production (NPP) at both sites, but none was able to simulate both the sustained 10-yr enhancement at Duke and the declining response at ORNL: models generally showed signs of progressive N limitation as a result of lower than observed plant N uptake. Nonetheless, many models showed qualitative agreement with observed component processes. The results suggest that improved representation of above-ground-below-ground interactions and better constraints on plant stoichiometry are important for a predictive understanding of eCO2 effects. Improved accuracy of soil organic matter inventories is pivotal to reduce uncertainty in the observed C-N budgets. The two FACE experiments are insufficient to fully constrain terrestrial responses to eCO2 , given the complexity of factors leading to the observed diverging trends, and the consequential inability of the models to explain these trends. Nevertheless, the ecosystem models were able to capture important features of the experiments, lending some support to their projections.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites.
    (The New phytologist, 2014-08) De Kauwe, Martin G; Medlyn, Belinda E; Zaehle, Sönke; Walker, Anthony P; Dietze, Michael C; Wang, Ying-Ping; Luo, Yiqi; Jain, Atul K; El-Masri, Bassil; Hickler, Thomas; Wårlind, David; Weng, Ensheng; Parton, William J; Thornton, Peter E; Wang, Shusen; Prentice, I Colin; Asao, Shinichi; Smith, Benjamin; McCarthy, Heather R; Iversen, Colleen M; Hanson, Paul J; Warren, Jeffrey M; Oren, Ram; Norby, Richard J
    Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (eCO2) has the potential to increase vegetation carbon storage if increased net primary production causes increased long-lived biomass. Model predictions of eCO2 effects on vegetation carbon storage depend on how allocation and turnover processes are represented. We used data from two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments to evaluate representations of allocation and turnover in 11 ecosystem models. Observed eCO2 effects on allocation were dynamic. Allocation schemes based on functional relationships among biomass fractions that vary with resource availability were best able to capture the general features of the observations. Allocation schemes based on constant fractions or resource limitations performed less well, with some models having unintended outcomes. Few models represent turnover processes mechanistically and there was wide variation in predictions of tissue lifespan. Consequently, models did not perform well at predicting eCO2 effects on vegetation carbon storage. Our recommendations to reduce uncertainty include: use of allocation schemes constrained by biomass fractions; careful testing of allocation schemes; and synthesis of allocation and turnover data in terms of model parameters. Data from intensively studied ecosystem manipulation experiments are invaluable for constraining models and we recommend that such experiments should attempt to fully quantify carbon, water and nutrient budgets.