Carbon–nitrogen coupling under three schemes of model representation: a traceability analysis
-
Published:2018-11-02
Issue:11
Volume:11
Page:4399-4416
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Du ZhenggangORCID, Weng EnshengORCID, Jiang Lifen, Luo Yiqi, Xia Jianyang, Zhou XuhuiORCID
Abstract
Abstract. The interaction between terrestrial carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycles has been incorporated into
more and more land surface models. However, the scheme of C–N coupling
differs greatly among models, and how these diverse representations of C–N
interactions will affect C-cycle modeling remains unclear. In this study, we
explored how the simulated ecosystem C storage capacity in the terrestrial
ecosystem (TECO) model varied with three different commonly used schemes of
C–N coupling. The three schemes (SM1, SM2, and SM3) have been used in three
different coupled C–N models (i.e., TECO-CN, CLM 4.5, and O-CN,
respectively). They differ mainly in the stoichiometry of C and N in
vegetation and soils, plant N uptake strategies, downregulation of
photosynthesis, and the pathways of N import. We incorporated the three C–N
coupling schemes into the C-only version of the TECO model and evaluated
their impacts on the C cycle with a traceability framework. Our results
showed that all three of the C–N schemes caused significant reductions in
steady-state C storage capacity compared with the C-only version with
magnitudes of −23 %, −30 %, and −54 % for SM1, SM2, and
SM3, respectively. This reduced C storage capacity was mainly derived from
the combined effects of decreases in net primary productivity (NPP;
−29 %, −15 %, and −45 %) and changes in mean C residence
time (MRT; 9 %, −17 %, and −17 %) for SM1, SM2, and SM3,
respectively. The differences in NPP are mainly attributed to the different
assumptions on plant N uptake, plant tissue C : N ratio,
downregulation of photosynthesis, and biological N fixation. In comparison,
the alternative representations of the plant vs. microbe competition strategy
and the plant N uptake, combined with the flexible C : N
ratio in vegetation and soils, led to a notable spread in MRT. These results
highlight the fact that the diverse assumptions on N processes represented by
different C–N coupled models could cause additional uncertainty for land
surface models. Understanding their difference can help us improve the
capability of models to predict future biogeochemical cycles of terrestrial
ecosystems.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference76 articles.
1. Ahlström, A., Xia, J., Arneth, A., Luo, Y., and Smith, B.: Importance of
vegetation dynamics for future terrestrial carbon cycling, Environ. Res.
Lett., 10, 089501, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/089501, 2015. 2. Arora, V., Boer, G., Friedlingstein, P., Eby, M., Jones, C., Christian, J.,
Bonan, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., and Hajima, T.:
Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system
models, J. Climate, 26, 5289–5314, 2013. 3. Cleveland, C., Townsend, A., Schimel, D., Fisher, H., Howarth, R., Hedin, L.,
Perakis, S., Latty, E., Von Fischer, J., Elseroad, A., and Wasson, M.: Global
patterns of terrestrial biological nitrogen (N2) fixation in natural
ecosystems, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 13, 623–645, 1999. 4. Cleveland, C., Houlton, B., Smith, W., Marklein, A., Reed, S., Parton, W.,
Del Grosso, S., and Running, S.: Patterns of new versus recycled primary
production in the terrestrial biosphere, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110,
12733–12737, 2013. 5. Craine, J., Brookshire, E., Cramer, M., Hasselquist, N., Koba, K.,
Marin-Spiotta, E., and Wang, L.: Ecological interpretations of nitrogen
isotope ratios of terrestrial plants and soils, Plant Soil, 396, 1–26, 2015.
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|