DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5

Abstract

Abstract Earth system models (ESMs) have been rapidly developed in recent decades to advance our understanding of climate change‐carbon cycle feedback. However, those models are massive in coding, require expensive computational resources, and have difficulty in diagnosing their performance. It is highly desirable to develop ESMs with modularity and effective diagnostics. Toward these goals, we implemented a matrix approach to the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) to represent carbon and nitrogen cycles. Specifically, we reorganized 18 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 18 vegetation pools in the original CLM5 into two matrix equations. Similarly, 140 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 140 soil pools were reorganized into two additional matrix equations. The vegetation carbon and nitrogen matrix equations are connected to soil matrix equations via litterfall. The matrix equations fully reproduce simulations of carbon and nitrogen dynamics by the original model. The computational cost for forwarding simulation of the CLM5 matrix model was 26% more expensive than the original model, largely due to calculation of additional diagnostic variables, but the spin‐up computational cost was significantly saved. We showed a case study on modeled soil carbon storage under two forcing data setsmore » to illustrate the diagnostic capability that the matrix approach uniquely offers to understand simulation results of global carbon and nitrogen dynamics. The successful implementation of the matrix approach to CLM5, one of the most complex land models, demonstrates that most, if not all, the biogeochemical models can be reorganized into the matrix form to gain high modularity, effective diagnostics, and accelerated spin‐up.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [4]; ORCiD logo [4]; ORCiD logo [5]; ORCiD logo [4];  [4]; ORCiD logo [6]; ORCiD logo [6]
  1. Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences Sun Yat‐sen University Guangzhou China, Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Flagstaff AZ USA
  2. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Flagstaff AZ USA, Zhejiang Tiantong Forest Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, Center for Global Change and Ecological Forecasting, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences East China Normal University Shanghai China
  3. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Aspendale Victoria Australia
  4. Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA
  5. Computer Science and Engineering Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge TN USA
  6. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Flagstaff AZ USA
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE; USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER). Earth and Environmental Systems Science Division; National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC); National Science Foundation (NSF); National Key Research and Development Program of China
OSTI Identifier:
1720182
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1781478; OSTI ID: 1787228
Grant/Contract Number:  
4000161830; DE‐SC0006982; 41575072; U1811464; 41730962; 41575092; 2017884; 4000158404; DEB 1655499; 2017YFA0604600 2016YFB0200801; 2017YFA0604300; SC0006982
Resource Type:
Published Article
Journal Name:
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Name: Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems Journal Volume: 12 Journal Issue: 11; Journal ID: ISSN 1942-2466
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; matrix approach; biogeochemistry modeling; traceability analysis; diagnostic; model structure; modularity

Citation Formats

Lu, Xingjie, Du, Zhenggang, Huang, Yuanyuan, Lawrence, David, Kluzek, Erik, Collier, Nathan, Lombardozzi, Danica, Sobhani, Negin, Schuur, Edward A. G., and Luo, Yiqi. Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5. United States: N. p., 2020. Web. doi:10.1029/2020MS002105.
Lu, Xingjie, Du, Zhenggang, Huang, Yuanyuan, Lawrence, David, Kluzek, Erik, Collier, Nathan, Lombardozzi, Danica, Sobhani, Negin, Schuur, Edward A. G., & Luo, Yiqi. Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5. United States. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002105
Lu, Xingjie, Du, Zhenggang, Huang, Yuanyuan, Lawrence, David, Kluzek, Erik, Collier, Nathan, Lombardozzi, Danica, Sobhani, Negin, Schuur, Edward A. G., and Luo, Yiqi. Wed . "Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5". United States. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002105.
@article{osti_1720182,
title = {Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5},
author = {Lu, Xingjie and Du, Zhenggang and Huang, Yuanyuan and Lawrence, David and Kluzek, Erik and Collier, Nathan and Lombardozzi, Danica and Sobhani, Negin and Schuur, Edward A. G. and Luo, Yiqi},
abstractNote = {Abstract Earth system models (ESMs) have been rapidly developed in recent decades to advance our understanding of climate change‐carbon cycle feedback. However, those models are massive in coding, require expensive computational resources, and have difficulty in diagnosing their performance. It is highly desirable to develop ESMs with modularity and effective diagnostics. Toward these goals, we implemented a matrix approach to the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) to represent carbon and nitrogen cycles. Specifically, we reorganized 18 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 18 vegetation pools in the original CLM5 into two matrix equations. Similarly, 140 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 140 soil pools were reorganized into two additional matrix equations. The vegetation carbon and nitrogen matrix equations are connected to soil matrix equations via litterfall. The matrix equations fully reproduce simulations of carbon and nitrogen dynamics by the original model. The computational cost for forwarding simulation of the CLM5 matrix model was 26% more expensive than the original model, largely due to calculation of additional diagnostic variables, but the spin‐up computational cost was significantly saved. We showed a case study on modeled soil carbon storage under two forcing data sets to illustrate the diagnostic capability that the matrix approach uniquely offers to understand simulation results of global carbon and nitrogen dynamics. The successful implementation of the matrix approach to CLM5, one of the most complex land models, demonstrates that most, if not all, the biogeochemical models can be reorganized into the matrix form to gain high modularity, effective diagnostics, and accelerated spin‐up.},
doi = {10.1029/2020MS002105},
journal = {Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems},
number = 11,
volume = 12,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Nov 18 00:00:00 EST 2020},
month = {Wed Nov 18 00:00:00 EST 2020}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002105

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Sustainability of terrestrial carbon sequestration: A case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach: SUSTAINABILITY OF TERRESTRIAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION
journal, March 2003

  • Luo, Yiqi; White, Luther W.; Canadell, Josep G.
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 17, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1029/2002GB001923

Transient dynamics of terrestrial carbon storage: mathematical foundation and its applications
journal, January 2017


Toward a Mechanistic Modeling of Nitrogen Limitation on Vegetation Dynamics
journal, May 2012


A general mathematical framework for representing soil organic matter dynamics
journal, November 2015

  • Sierra, Carlos A.; Müller, Markus
  • Ecological Monographs, Vol. 85, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1890/15-0361.1

Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization
journal, January 2016

  • Eyring, Veronika; Bony, Sandrine; Meehl, Gerald A.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016

Emergent constraints on climate-carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system models
journal, May 2014

  • Wenzel, Sabrina; Cox, Peter M.; Eyring, Veronika
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, Vol. 119, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JG002591

Divergent predictions of carbon storage between two global land models: attribution of the causes through traceability analysis
journal, January 2016

  • Rafique, Rashid; Xia, Jianyang; Hararuk, Oleksandra
  • Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 7, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.5194/esd-7-649-2016

Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: The challenge to predict life in Earth system models
journal, February 2018


Transient Traceability Analysis of Land Carbon Storage Dynamics: Procedures and Its Application to Two Forest Ecosystems
journal, December 2017

  • Jiang, Lifen; Shi, Zheng; Xia, Jianyang
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 9, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017MS001004

Comparing the Performance of Three Land Models in Global C Cycle Simulations: A Detailed Structural Analysis
journal, April 2016

  • Rafique, Rashid; Xia, Jianyang; Hararuk, Oleksandra
  • Land Degradation & Development, Vol. 28, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2506

A semi-analytical solution to accelerate spin-up of a coupled carbon and nitrogen land model to steady state
journal, January 2012

  • Xia, J. Y.; Luo, Y. Q.; Wang, Y. -P.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 5, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-5-1259-2012

Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage within and across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques
journal, April 2018


The global carbon budget 1959–2011
journal, January 2013


A land surface model (IAP94) for climate studies part I: Formulation and validation in off-line experiments
journal, December 1997


Microbial models with data-driven parameters predict stronger soil carbon responses to climate change
journal, March 2015

  • Hararuk, Oleksandra; Smith, Matthew J.; Luo, Yiqi
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 21, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12827

A regional forest ecosystem carbon budget model: impacts of forest age structure and landuse history
journal, June 2003


Carbon–nitrogen coupling under three schemes of model representation: a traceability analysis
journal, January 2018

  • Du, Zhenggang; Weng, Ensheng; Jiang, Lifen
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-11-4399-2018

Global Carbon Budget 2019
journal, January 2019

  • Friedlingstein, Pierre; Jones, Matthew W.; O'Sullivan, Michael
  • Earth System Science Data, Vol. 11, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019

Improvement of global litter turnover rate predictions using a Bayesian MCMC approach
journal, December 2014


Carbon cycle feedbacks and future climate change
journal, November 2015

  • Friedlingstein, Pierre
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 373, Issue 2054
  • DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0421

Uncertainties in CMIP5 Climate Projections due to Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
journal, January 2014

  • Friedlingstein, Pierre; Meinshausen, Malte; Arora, Vivek K.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 27, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00579.1

Model structures amplify uncertainty in predicted soil carbon responses to climate change
journal, June 2018


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

GSWP-2: Multimodel Analysis and Implications for Our Perception of the Land Surface
journal, October 2006

  • Dirmeyer, Paul A.; Gao, Xiang; Zhao, Mei
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 87, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-87-10-1381

Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests
journal, December 2002


Effects of global irrigation on the near-surface climate
journal, July 2008

  • Sacks, William J.; Cook, Benjamin I.; Buenning, Nikolaus
  • Climate Dynamics, Vol. 33, Issue 2-3
  • DOI: 10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z

Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets
journal, September 2014

  • Friedlingstein, P.; Andrew, R. M.; Rogelj, J.
  • Nature Geoscience, Vol. 7, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2248

Matrix approach to land carbon cycle modeling: A case study with the Community Land Model
journal, November 2017

  • Huang, Yuanyuan; Lu, Xingjie; Shi, Zheng
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 24, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13948

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

Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change
journal, January 2012


Matrix-Based Sensitivity Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon Storage: A Case Study from the ORCHIDEE-MICT Model
journal, August 2018

  • Huang, Yuanyuan; Zhu, Dan; Ciais, Philippe
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 10, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1029/2017MS001237

Contribution of permafrost soils to the global carbon budget
journal, February 2013


Ecosystem model spin-up: Estimating steady state conditions in a coupled terrestrial carbon and nitrogen cycle model
journal, November 2005


Nonlinear CO 2 flux response to 7 years of experimentally induced permafrost thaw
journal, March 2017

  • Mauritz, Marguerite; Bracho, Rosvel; Celis, Gerardo
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 23, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13661

The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4
journal, January 2013


Traceable components of terrestrial carbon storage capacity in biogeochemical models
journal, March 2013

  • Xia, Jianyang; Luo, Yiqi; Wang, Ying-Ping
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 19, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12172

Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6)
journal, January 2017

  • Meinshausen, Malte; Vogel, Elisabeth; Nauels, Alexander
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 10, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017

The Community Land Model Version 5: Description of New Features, Benchmarking, and Impact of Forcing Uncertainty
journal, December 2019

  • Lawrence, David M.; Fisher, Rosie A.; Koven, Charles D.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018MS001583

Modeling agriculture in the Community Land Model
journal, January 2013

  • Drewniak, B.; Song, J.; Prell, J.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 6, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-6-495-2013

Inverse analysis of coupled carbon–nitrogen cycles against multiple datasets at ambient and elevated CO 2
journal, September 2015

  • Shi, Zheng; Yang, Yuanhe; Zhou, Xuhui
  • Journal of Plant Ecology, Vol. 9, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1093/jpe/rtv059

Importance of vegetation dynamics for future terrestrial carbon cycling
journal, May 2015


Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C
journal, April 2009

  • Meinshausen, Malte; Meinshausen, Nicolai; Hare, William
  • Nature, Vol. 458, Issue 7242
  • DOI: 10.1038/nature08017