skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Significant inconsistency of vegetation carbon density in CMIP5 Earth system models against observational data

Abstract

Earth system models (ESMs) have been widely used for projecting global vegetation carbon dynamics, yet how well ESMs performed for simulating vegetation carbon density remains untested. Here we have compiled observational data of vegetation carbon density from literature and existing data sets to evaluate nine ESMs at site, biome, latitude, and global scales. Three variables—root (including fine and coarse roots), total vegetation carbon density, and the root:total vegetation carbon ratios (R/T ratios), were chosen for ESM evaluation. ESM models performed well in simulating the spatial distribution of carbon densities in root (r = 0.71) and total vegetation (r = 0.62). However, ESM models had significant biases in simulating absolute carbon densities in root and total vegetation biomass across the majority of land ecosystems, especially in tropical and arctic ecosystems. Particularly, ESMs significantly overestimated carbon density in root (183%) and total vegetation biomass (167%) in climate zones of 10°S–10°N. Substantial discrepancies between modeled and observed R/T ratios were found: the R/T ratios from ESMs were relatively constant, approximately 0.2 across all ecosystems, along latitudinal gradients, and in tropic, temperate, and arctic climatic zones, which was significantly different from the observed large variations in the R/T ratios (0.1–0.8). There were substantial inconsistenciesmore » between ESM-derived carbon density in root and total vegetation biomass and the R/T ratio at multiple scales, indicating urgent needs for model improvements on carbon allocation algorithms and more intensive field campaigns targeting carbon density in all key vegetation components.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [2];  [4]; ORCiD logo [5]
  1. Biology DepartmentSan Diego State University San Diego California USA, Biology DepartmentUniversity of Texas at El Paso El Paso Texas USA
  2. Environmental Sciences Division and Climate Change Science InstituteOak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge Tennessee USA
  3. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources ResearchChinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China
  4. Biology DepartmentSan Diego State University San Diego California USA
  5. Biology DepartmentSan Diego State University San Diego California USA, Biology DepartmentUniversity of Texas at El Paso El Paso Texas USA, Northeast Institute of Geography and AgroecologyChinese Academy of Sciences Changchun China
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23); National Science Foundation (NSF)
OSTI Identifier:
1389091
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1389092; OSTI ID: 1393808
Grant/Contract Number:  
DE‐AC05‐00OR22725; AC05-00OR22725; ACI-1053575
Resource Type:
Published Article
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research. Biogeosciences
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Name: Journal of Geophysical Research. Biogeosciences Journal Volume: 122 Journal Issue: 9; Journal ID: ISSN 2169-8953
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; carbon density; root; vegetation; root/vegetation ratio; Earth system models

Citation Formats

Song, Xia, Hoffman, Forrest M., Iversen, Colleen M., Yin, Yunhe, Kumar, Jitendra, Ma, Chun, and Xu, Xiaofeng. Significant inconsistency of vegetation carbon density in CMIP5 Earth system models against observational data. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/2017JG003914.
Song, Xia, Hoffman, Forrest M., Iversen, Colleen M., Yin, Yunhe, Kumar, Jitendra, Ma, Chun, & Xu, Xiaofeng. Significant inconsistency of vegetation carbon density in CMIP5 Earth system models against observational data. United States. doi:10.1002/2017JG003914.
Song, Xia, Hoffman, Forrest M., Iversen, Colleen M., Yin, Yunhe, Kumar, Jitendra, Ma, Chun, and Xu, Xiaofeng. Sat . "Significant inconsistency of vegetation carbon density in CMIP5 Earth system models against observational data". United States. doi:10.1002/2017JG003914.
@article{osti_1389091,
title = {Significant inconsistency of vegetation carbon density in CMIP5 Earth system models against observational data},
author = {Song, Xia and Hoffman, Forrest M. and Iversen, Colleen M. and Yin, Yunhe and Kumar, Jitendra and Ma, Chun and Xu, Xiaofeng},
abstractNote = {Earth system models (ESMs) have been widely used for projecting global vegetation carbon dynamics, yet how well ESMs performed for simulating vegetation carbon density remains untested. Here we have compiled observational data of vegetation carbon density from literature and existing data sets to evaluate nine ESMs at site, biome, latitude, and global scales. Three variables—root (including fine and coarse roots), total vegetation carbon density, and the root:total vegetation carbon ratios (R/T ratios), were chosen for ESM evaluation. ESM models performed well in simulating the spatial distribution of carbon densities in root (r = 0.71) and total vegetation (r = 0.62). However, ESM models had significant biases in simulating absolute carbon densities in root and total vegetation biomass across the majority of land ecosystems, especially in tropical and arctic ecosystems. Particularly, ESMs significantly overestimated carbon density in root (183%) and total vegetation biomass (167%) in climate zones of 10°S–10°N. Substantial discrepancies between modeled and observed R/T ratios were found: the R/T ratios from ESMs were relatively constant, approximately 0.2 across all ecosystems, along latitudinal gradients, and in tropic, temperate, and arctic climatic zones, which was significantly different from the observed large variations in the R/T ratios (0.1–0.8). There were substantial inconsistencies between ESM-derived carbon density in root and total vegetation biomass and the R/T ratio at multiple scales, indicating urgent needs for model improvements on carbon allocation algorithms and more intensive field campaigns targeting carbon density in all key vegetation components.},
doi = {10.1002/2017JG003914},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research. Biogeosciences},
number = 9,
volume = 122,
place = {United States},
year = {2017},
month = {9}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
DOI: 10.1002/2017JG003914

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 2 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

A validation of heat and carbon fluxes from high-resolution land surface and regional models
journal, January 2010

  • Anav, Alessandro; D'Andrea, Fabio; Viovy, Nicolas
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, Issue G4
  • DOI: 10.1029/2009JG001178

The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate
journal, January 1992


Carbon-nitrogen interactions regulate climate-carbon cycle feedbacks: results from an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model
journal, January 2009


Multiple steady-states in the terrestrial atmosphere-biosphere system: a result of a discrete vegetation classification?
journal, January 2007


Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback
journal, April 2015

  • Schuur, E. A. G.; McGuire, A. D.; Schädel, C.
  • Nature, Vol. 520, Issue 7546
  • DOI: 10.1038/nature14338

GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part II: Carbon System Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics
journal, April 2013


Benchmarking the seasonal cycle of CO 2 fluxes simulated by terrestrial ecosystem models : Seasonal cycle of CO2 fluxes
journal, January 2015

  • Peng, Shushi; Ciais, Philippe; Chevallier, Frédéric
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 29, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014GB004931

Relative information contributions of model vs. data to short- and long-term forecasts of forest carbon dynamics
journal, July 2011

  • Weng, Ensheng; Luo, Yiqi
  • Ecological Applications, Vol. 21, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1890/09-1394.1

The unseen iceberg: plant roots in arctic tundra
journal, September 2014

  • Iversen, Colleen M.; Sloan, Victoria L.; Sullivan, Patrick F.
  • New Phytologist, Vol. 205, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1111/nph.13003

Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO 2
journal, December 2013

  • Friend, Andrew D.; Lucht, Wolfgang; Rademacher, Tim T.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1222477110

Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming: AMOUNT AND TIMING OF PERMAFROST CARBON RELEASE
journal, February 2011


Forest turnover rates follow global and regional patterns of productivity: Patterns in forest turnover rates
journal, April 2005


Analysis of Factors Controlling Soil Organic Matter Levels in Great Plains Grasslands1
journal, January 1987


A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system: DVGM FOR COUPLED CLIMATE STUDIES
journal, February 2005

  • Krinner, G.; Viovy, Nicolas; de Noblet-Ducoudré, Nathalie
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 19, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1029/2003GB002199

Critical analysis of root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes
journal, January 2006


Scale-Dependent Performance of CMIP5 Earth System Models in Simulating Terrestrial Vegetation Carbon
journal, July 2015


Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models
journal, September 2013


A framework for benchmarking land models
journal, January 2012


Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems
journal, September 2014

  • Carvalhais, Nuno; Forkel, Matthias; Khomik, Myroslava
  • Nature, Vol. 514, Issue 7521
  • DOI: 10.1038/nature13731

Climate and carbon-cycle variability over the last millennium
journal, January 2010

  • Jungclaus, J. H.; Lorenz, S. J.; Timmreck, C.
  • Climate of the Past, Vol. 6, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/cp-6-723-2010

Causes and implications of persistent atmospheric carbon dioxide biases in Earth System Models
journal, February 2014

  • Hoffman, F. M.; Randerson, J. T.; Arora, V. K.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, Vol. 119, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JG002381

Root structural and functional dynamics in terrestrial biosphere models - evaluation and recommendations
journal, September 2014

  • Warren, Jeffrey M.; Hanson, Paul J.; Iversen, Colleen M.
  • New Phytologist, Vol. 205, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1111/nph.13034

Changes in soil organic carbon storage predicted by Earth system models during the 21st century
journal, January 2014

  • Todd-Brown, K. E. O.; Randerson, J. T.; Hopkins, F.
  • Biogeosciences, Vol. 11, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.5194/bg-11-2341-2014

Substrate and environmental controls on microbial assimilation of soil organic carbon: a framework for Earth system models
journal, February 2014

  • Xu, Xiaofeng; Schimel, Joshua P.; Thornton, Peter E.
  • Ecology Letters, Vol. 17, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1111/ele.12254

Comparison of Arctic Climate Simulations by Uncoupled and Coupled Global Models
journal, June 2002


Benchmarking coupled climate-carbon models against long-term atmospheric CO 2 measurements : COUPLED CLIMATE-CARBON MODELS BENCHMARKS
journal, June 2010

  • Cadule, P.; Friedlingstein, P.; Bopp, L.
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 24, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1029/2009GB003556

A global analysis of soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in terrestrial ecosystems: Global soil microbial biomass C, N and P
journal, December 2012

  • Xu, Xiaofeng; Thornton, Peter E.; Post, Wilfred M.
  • Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol. 22, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1111/geb.12029

The Vertical Distribution of soil Organic Carbon and its Relation to Climate and Vegetation
journal, April 2000


Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems
journal, May 2002


Arctic Environmental Change of the Last Four Centuries
journal, November 1997


Global pattern and controls of soil microbial metabolic quotient
journal, May 2017

  • Xu, Xiaofeng; Schimel, Joshua P.; Janssens, Ivan A.
  • Ecological Monographs, Vol. 87, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/ecm.1258

Warming-related increases in soil CO2 efflux are explained by increased below-ground carbon flux
journal, July 2014

  • Giardina, Christian P.; Litton, Creighton M.; Crow, Susan E.
  • Nature Climate Change, Vol. 4, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2322

Abrupt CO2 experiments as tools for predicting and understanding CMIP5 representative concentration pathway projections
journal, June 2012


Carbon–Concentration and Carbon–Climate Feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models
journal, August 2013

  • Arora, Vivek K.; Boer, George J.; Friedlingstein, Pierre
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 26, Issue 15
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1

Balancing the Global Carbon Budget
journal, May 2007


Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations
journal, January 2013

  • Todd-Brown, K. E. O.; Randerson, J. T.; Post, W. M.
  • Biogeosciences, Vol. 10, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013

Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C 4 MIP Model Intercomparison
journal, July 2006

  • Friedlingstein, P.; Cox, P.; Betts, R.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 19, Issue 14
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3800.1

Nitrogen limitation on land: how can it occur in Earth system models?
journal, February 2015

  • Thomas, R. Quinn; Brookshire, E. N. Jack; Gerber, Stefan
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 21, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12813

Sensitivity of four ecological models to adjustments in fine root turnover rate
journal, February 2015


A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes
journal, November 1996

  • Jackson, R. B.; Canadell, J.; Ehleringer, J. R.
  • Oecologia, Vol. 108, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1007/BF00333714

Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century
journal, September 2016


Fertilizing change
journal, October 2008


Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain
journal, April 1999

  • Pounds, J. Alan; Fogden, Michael P. L.; Campbell, John H.
  • Nature, Vol. 398, Issue 6728
  • DOI: 10.1038/19297

Earth system models: an overview: Earth system models
journal, November 2011

  • Flato, Gregory M.
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 2, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1002/wcc.148

Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems: RESEARCH Root turnover in terrestrial ecosystems
journal, July 2000


Phenotypic Plasticity and Interactions Among Plants
journal, May 2003


Estimating the risk of Amazonian forest dieback
journal, June 2010


Comparison of modeling approaches for carbon partitioning: Impact on estimates of global net primary production and equilibrium biomass of woody vegetation from MODIS GPP
journal, January 2010

  • Ise, Takeshi; Litton, Creighton M.; Giardina, Christian P.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, Issue G4
  • DOI: 10.1029/2010JG001326

The role of phosphorus dynamics in tropical forests – a modeling study using CLM-CNP
journal, January 2014


Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5: Climate Changes in MPI-ESM
journal, July 2013

  • Giorgetta, Marco A.; Jungclaus, Johann; Reick, Christian H.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 5, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/jame.20038

Plant functional types in Earth system models: past experiences and future directions for application of dynamic vegetation models in high-latitude ecosystems
journal, May 2014

  • Wullschleger, Stan D.; Epstein, Howard E.; Box, Elgene O.
  • Annals of Botany, Vol. 114, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcu077

Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record
journal, March 2010