North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis: Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison

Deborah N Huntzinger, W. M. Post, Y. Wei, A. M. Michalak, T. O. West, A. R. Jacobson, I. T. Baker, J. M. Chen, K. J. Davis, D. J. Hayes, F. M. Hoffman, A. K. Jain, S. Liu, A. D. McGuire, R. P. Neilson, Chris Potter, B. Poulter, David Price, B. M. Raczka, H. Q. TianP. Thornton, E. Tomelleri, N. Viovy, J. Xiao, W. Yuan, N. Zeng, M. Zhao, R. Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

135 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Understanding of carbon exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere can be improved through direct observations and experiments, as well as through modeling activities. Terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) have become an integral tool for extrapolating local observations and understanding to much larger terrestrial regions. Although models vary in their specific goals and approaches, their central role within carbon cycle science is to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms currently controlling carbon exchange. Recently, the North American Carbon Program (NACP) organized several interim-synthesis activities to evaluate and inter-compare models and observations at local to continental scales for the years 2000-2005. Here, we compare the results from the TBMs collected as part of the regional and continental interim-synthesis (RCIS) activities. The primary objective of this work is to synthesize and compare the 19 participating TBMs to assess current understanding of the terrestrial carbon cycle in North America. Thus, the RCIS focuses on model simulations available from analyses that have been completed by ongoing NACP projects and other recently published studies. The TBM flux estimates are compared and evaluated over different spatial (1°×1° and spatially aggregated to different regions) and temporal (monthly and annually) scales. The range in model estimates of net ecosystem productivity (NEP) for North America is much narrower than estimates of productivity or respiration, with estimates of NEP varying between -0.7 and 2.2PgCyr -1, while gross primary productivity and heterotrophic respiration vary between 12.2 and 32.9PgCyr -1 and 5.6 and 13.2PgCyr -1, respectively. The range in estimates from the models appears to be driven by a combination of factors, including the representation of photosynthesis, the source and of environmental driver data and the temporal variability of those data, as well as whether nutrient limitation is considered in soil carbon decomposition. The disagreement in current estimates of carbon flux across North America, including whether North America is a net biospheric carbon source or sink, highlights the need for further analysis through the use of model runs following a common simulation protocol, in order to isolate the influences of model formulation, structure, and assumptions on flux estimates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)144-157
Number of pages14
JournalEcological Modelling
Volume232
DOIs
StatePublished - May 10 2012

Fingerprint

carbon
biosphere
productivity
carbon cycle
respiration
programme
ecosystem
nutrient limitation
carbon flux
soil carbon
terrestrial ecosystem
simulation
photosynthesis
decomposition
North America
atmosphere
modeling
experiment

Keywords

  • Carbon fluxes
  • Intercomparison
  • North American Carbon Program
  • Regional
  • Terrestrial biospheric models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecological Modeling

Cite this

North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis : Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison. / Huntzinger, Deborah N; Post, W. M.; Wei, Y.; Michalak, A. M.; West, T. O.; Jacobson, A. R.; Baker, I. T.; Chen, J. M.; Davis, K. J.; Hayes, D. J.; Hoffman, F. M.; Jain, A. K.; Liu, S.; McGuire, A. D.; Neilson, R. P.; Potter, Chris; Poulter, B.; Price, David; Raczka, B. M.; Tian, H. Q.; Thornton, P.; Tomelleri, E.; Viovy, N.; Xiao, J.; Yuan, W.; Zeng, N.; Zhao, M.; Cook, R.

In: Ecological Modelling, Vol. 232, 10.05.2012, p. 144-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Huntzinger, DN, Post, WM, Wei, Y, Michalak, AM, West, TO, Jacobson, AR, Baker, IT, Chen, JM, Davis, KJ, Hayes, DJ, Hoffman, FM, Jain, AK, Liu, S, McGuire, AD, Neilson, RP, Potter, C, Poulter, B, Price, D, Raczka, BM, Tian, HQ, Thornton, P, Tomelleri, E, Viovy, N, Xiao, J, Yuan, W, Zeng, N, Zhao, M & Cook, R 2012, 'North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis: Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison', Ecological Modelling, vol. 232, pp. 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.004
Huntzinger, Deborah N ; Post, W. M. ; Wei, Y. ; Michalak, A. M. ; West, T. O. ; Jacobson, A. R. ; Baker, I. T. ; Chen, J. M. ; Davis, K. J. ; Hayes, D. J. ; Hoffman, F. M. ; Jain, A. K. ; Liu, S. ; McGuire, A. D. ; Neilson, R. P. ; Potter, Chris ; Poulter, B. ; Price, David ; Raczka, B. M. ; Tian, H. Q. ; Thornton, P. ; Tomelleri, E. ; Viovy, N. ; Xiao, J. ; Yuan, W. ; Zeng, N. ; Zhao, M. ; Cook, R. / North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis : Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison. In: Ecological Modelling. 2012 ; Vol. 232. pp. 144-157.
@article{a6b063906ff44247a76cd9898cac577d,
title = "North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis: Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison",
abstract = "Understanding of carbon exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere can be improved through direct observations and experiments, as well as through modeling activities. Terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) have become an integral tool for extrapolating local observations and understanding to much larger terrestrial regions. Although models vary in their specific goals and approaches, their central role within carbon cycle science is to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms currently controlling carbon exchange. Recently, the North American Carbon Program (NACP) organized several interim-synthesis activities to evaluate and inter-compare models and observations at local to continental scales for the years 2000-2005. Here, we compare the results from the TBMs collected as part of the regional and continental interim-synthesis (RCIS) activities. The primary objective of this work is to synthesize and compare the 19 participating TBMs to assess current understanding of the terrestrial carbon cycle in North America. Thus, the RCIS focuses on model simulations available from analyses that have been completed by ongoing NACP projects and other recently published studies. The TBM flux estimates are compared and evaluated over different spatial (1°×1° and spatially aggregated to different regions) and temporal (monthly and annually) scales. The range in model estimates of net ecosystem productivity (NEP) for North America is much narrower than estimates of productivity or respiration, with estimates of NEP varying between -0.7 and 2.2PgCyr -1, while gross primary productivity and heterotrophic respiration vary between 12.2 and 32.9PgCyr -1 and 5.6 and 13.2PgCyr -1, respectively. The range in estimates from the models appears to be driven by a combination of factors, including the representation of photosynthesis, the source and of environmental driver data and the temporal variability of those data, as well as whether nutrient limitation is considered in soil carbon decomposition. The disagreement in current estimates of carbon flux across North America, including whether North America is a net biospheric carbon source or sink, highlights the need for further analysis through the use of model runs following a common simulation protocol, in order to isolate the influences of model formulation, structure, and assumptions on flux estimates.",
keywords = "Carbon fluxes, Intercomparison, North American Carbon Program, Regional, Terrestrial biospheric models",
author = "Huntzinger, {Deborah N} and Post, {W. M.} and Y. Wei and Michalak, {A. M.} and West, {T. O.} and Jacobson, {A. R.} and Baker, {I. T.} and Chen, {J. M.} and Davis, {K. J.} and Hayes, {D. J.} and Hoffman, {F. M.} and Jain, {A. K.} and S. Liu and McGuire, {A. D.} and Neilson, {R. P.} and Chris Potter and B. Poulter and David Price and Raczka, {B. M.} and Tian, {H. Q.} and P. Thornton and E. Tomelleri and N. Viovy and J. Xiao and W. Yuan and N. Zeng and M. Zhao and R. Cook",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "232",
pages = "144--157",
journal = "Ecological Modelling",
issn = "0304-3800",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis

T2 - Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison

AU - Huntzinger, Deborah N

AU - Post, W. M.

AU - Wei, Y.

AU - Michalak, A. M.

AU - West, T. O.

AU - Jacobson, A. R.

AU - Baker, I. T.

AU - Chen, J. M.

AU - Davis, K. J.

AU - Hayes, D. J.

AU - Hoffman, F. M.

AU - Jain, A. K.

AU - Liu, S.

AU - McGuire, A. D.

AU - Neilson, R. P.

AU - Potter, Chris

AU - Poulter, B.

AU - Price, David

AU - Raczka, B. M.

AU - Tian, H. Q.

AU - Thornton, P.

AU - Tomelleri, E.

AU - Viovy, N.

AU - Xiao, J.

AU - Yuan, W.

AU - Zeng, N.

AU - Zhao, M.

AU - Cook, R.

PY - 2012/5/10

Y1 - 2012/5/10

N2 - Understanding of carbon exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere can be improved through direct observations and experiments, as well as through modeling activities. Terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) have become an integral tool for extrapolating local observations and understanding to much larger terrestrial regions. Although models vary in their specific goals and approaches, their central role within carbon cycle science is to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms currently controlling carbon exchange. Recently, the North American Carbon Program (NACP) organized several interim-synthesis activities to evaluate and inter-compare models and observations at local to continental scales for the years 2000-2005. Here, we compare the results from the TBMs collected as part of the regional and continental interim-synthesis (RCIS) activities. The primary objective of this work is to synthesize and compare the 19 participating TBMs to assess current understanding of the terrestrial carbon cycle in North America. Thus, the RCIS focuses on model simulations available from analyses that have been completed by ongoing NACP projects and other recently published studies. The TBM flux estimates are compared and evaluated over different spatial (1°×1° and spatially aggregated to different regions) and temporal (monthly and annually) scales. The range in model estimates of net ecosystem productivity (NEP) for North America is much narrower than estimates of productivity or respiration, with estimates of NEP varying between -0.7 and 2.2PgCyr -1, while gross primary productivity and heterotrophic respiration vary between 12.2 and 32.9PgCyr -1 and 5.6 and 13.2PgCyr -1, respectively. The range in estimates from the models appears to be driven by a combination of factors, including the representation of photosynthesis, the source and of environmental driver data and the temporal variability of those data, as well as whether nutrient limitation is considered in soil carbon decomposition. The disagreement in current estimates of carbon flux across North America, including whether North America is a net biospheric carbon source or sink, highlights the need for further analysis through the use of model runs following a common simulation protocol, in order to isolate the influences of model formulation, structure, and assumptions on flux estimates.

AB - Understanding of carbon exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere can be improved through direct observations and experiments, as well as through modeling activities. Terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) have become an integral tool for extrapolating local observations and understanding to much larger terrestrial regions. Although models vary in their specific goals and approaches, their central role within carbon cycle science is to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms currently controlling carbon exchange. Recently, the North American Carbon Program (NACP) organized several interim-synthesis activities to evaluate and inter-compare models and observations at local to continental scales for the years 2000-2005. Here, we compare the results from the TBMs collected as part of the regional and continental interim-synthesis (RCIS) activities. The primary objective of this work is to synthesize and compare the 19 participating TBMs to assess current understanding of the terrestrial carbon cycle in North America. Thus, the RCIS focuses on model simulations available from analyses that have been completed by ongoing NACP projects and other recently published studies. The TBM flux estimates are compared and evaluated over different spatial (1°×1° and spatially aggregated to different regions) and temporal (monthly and annually) scales. The range in model estimates of net ecosystem productivity (NEP) for North America is much narrower than estimates of productivity or respiration, with estimates of NEP varying between -0.7 and 2.2PgCyr -1, while gross primary productivity and heterotrophic respiration vary between 12.2 and 32.9PgCyr -1 and 5.6 and 13.2PgCyr -1, respectively. The range in estimates from the models appears to be driven by a combination of factors, including the representation of photosynthesis, the source and of environmental driver data and the temporal variability of those data, as well as whether nutrient limitation is considered in soil carbon decomposition. The disagreement in current estimates of carbon flux across North America, including whether North America is a net biospheric carbon source or sink, highlights the need for further analysis through the use of model runs following a common simulation protocol, in order to isolate the influences of model formulation, structure, and assumptions on flux estimates.

KW - Carbon fluxes

KW - Intercomparison

KW - North American Carbon Program

KW - Regional

KW - Terrestrial biospheric models

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859481023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859481023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.004

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.004

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84859481023

VL - 232

SP - 144

EP - 157

JO - Ecological Modelling

JF - Ecological Modelling

SN - 0304-3800

ER -