Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of closed ecological systems in carbon cycle modelling

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Acquiring a mechanistic understanding of the role of biotic feedbacks for the links between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature is essential for trustworthy climate predictions. Currently, computer-based simulations are the only available tool to estimate the global impact of biotic feedbacks on future atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. Here we propose an alternative and complementary approach by using materially closed, energetically open analogue/physical models of the carbon cycle. We argue that there is unexplored potential in using a materially closed approach to improve our understanding of the magnitude and direction of many biotic carbon feedbacks and that recent technological advances make this feasible. We also suggest how such systems could be designed and discuss the advantages and limitations of establishing physical models of the global carbon cycle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albritton D, Allen M, Baede A, Church J, Cubasch U, Xiaosu D, Yihui D, Ehhalt D, Folland C, Giorgi F (2001) of Book: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press

  • Berner R (2003) The long-term carbon cycle, fossil fuels and atmospheric composition. Nature 426:323–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J, Tilman D (1996) Biosphere 2 and Biodiversity–The Lessons So Far. Science 274:1150–1151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corey K, Wheeler R (1992) Gas exchange in NASA’s biomass production chamber. Bioscience 42:503–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox P, Betts R, Jones C, Spall S, Totterdell I (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:184–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson E, Janssens I, Luo Y (2006) On the variability of respiration in terrestrial ecosystems: moving beyond Q10. Glob Change Biol 12:154–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster W (2008) Tightly closed ecological systems reveal atmospheric subtleties–experience from Biosphere 2. Adv Space Res 42:1951–1956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folsome C, Hanson J (1986) The emergence of materially closed system ecology. Ecosystem Theory and Application pp. 269–288.

  • Friedlingstein P, Dufresne J, Cox P, Rayner P (2003) How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? Tellus B 55:692–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedlingstein P, Bopp L, Rayner P, Cox P, Betts R, Jones C, Von Bloh W, Brovkin V, Cadule P, Doney S (2006) Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Clim 19:3337–3353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigg R, Hartmann S (2006) Models in science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  • Fuller R, Snyder J (1969) Operating manual for spaceship earth. Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones C, Cox P, Huntingford C (2003) Uncertainty in climate-carbon-cycle projections associated with the sensitivity of soil respiration to temperature. Tellus B 55:642–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeling C, Bacastow R, Bainbridge A, Ekdahl C Jr, Guenther P, Waterman L, Chin J (1976) Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa observatory, Hawaii. Tellus 28:538–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeling, R. F. and S. R. Shertz. 1992. Seasonal and interannual variations in atmospheric oxygen and implications for the global carbon cycle. Nature 358, 723–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliss M, Blackwell C, Zografos A, Drews M, Macelroy R, Mckenna R, Heyenga A (2003) Initial closed operation of the CELSS test facility engineering development unit. Adv Space Res 31:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton T (2000) Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model. Tellus 52:1159–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock J, Margulis L (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere- The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus 26:2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukac M, Milcu A, Wildman D, Anderson R, Sloan T, Ineson P (2010) Non intrusive monitoring of atmospheric CO2 in analogue models of terrestrial carbon cycle. Met Ecol Evol. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00058.x

  • Miller S, Urey H (1959) Organic Compound Synthes on the Primitive Eart Several questions about the origin of life have been answered, but much remains to be studied. pp. 245–251.

  • Morowitz H, Allen JP, Nelson M, Alling A (2005) Closure as a scientific concept and its application to ecosystem ecology and the science of the biosphere. Adv Space Res 36:1305–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson M, Burgess T, Alling A, Alvarez-Romo N, Dempster W, Walford R, Allen J (1993) Using a closed ecological system to study Earth’s biosphere. Bioscience 43:225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson M, Allen J, Ailing A, Wf D, Silverstone S (2003a) Earth applications of closed ecological systems: Relevance to the development of sustainability in our global biosphere. Adv Space Res 31:1649–1655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson M, Wf D, Alling A, Jp A, Rasmussen R, Silverstone S, Van Thillo M (2003b) Initial experimental results from the laboratory biosphere closed ecological system facility. Adv Space Res 31:1721–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitta K (2003) New problems to be solved for establishing closed life support system. Adv Space Res 31:63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priestley J (1772) Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. J Phil Trans 62:147–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich P, Hobbie S, Lee T, Ellsworth D, West J, Tilman D, Knops J, Naeem S, Trost J (2006) Nitrogen limitation constrains sustainability of ecosystem response to CO2. Nature 440:922–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury F, Gitelson J, Lisovsky G (1997) Bios-3: Siberian Experiments in Bioregenerative Life Support. Bioscience 47:575–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor MMB, Miller HL Jr, Chen Z (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press

  • Taub F (1974) Closed ecological systems. Ann Rev Ecol Sys 5:139–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taub F (2009) Community metabolism of aquatic Closed Ecological Systems: Effects of nitrogen sources. Adv Space Res 44:949–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernadsky V (1926) The Biosphere. Abridged English edition published in 1986 by Synergetic Press, Oracle, Arizona

  • Walker, J. C. G., P. Hays, and J. Kasting. 1981. A negative feedback mechanism for the long-term stabilization of the Earth's surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 86, 9776–9782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler R, Drese J, Sager J (1991) Atmospheric leakage and condensate production in NASA’s biomass production chamber. Effect of diurnal temperature cycles. John F. Kennedy Space Center. NASA Technical Memorandum 103819

  • Wheeler R, Peterson B, Sager J, Knott W (1996) Ethylene production by plants in a closed environment. Adv Space Res 18:193–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson D (2003) The fundamental processes in ecology: a thought experiment on extraterrestrial biospheres. Biol Rev 78:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winogradsky S (1887) Uber Schwefelbakterien. Bot Zeitung 45:489–610

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants to the Workshop on Closed Ecological Systems organised by the NERC Centre for Population Biology: Tim Benton, Mike Dixon, Larissa Hendrickx, Andreas Heinemeyer, Oscar Monje, Mark Nelson, Frieda B. Taub, Tyler Volk, Raymond M. Wheeler and Mathew Williams. Special thanks to David M. Wilkinson and Dennis Wildman for their comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NERC Centre for Population Biology, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK

    Alexandru Milcu & Martin Lukac

  2. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, RG6 6AR, Reading, UK

    Martin Lukac

  3. Biology Department, University of York, York, YO10 5YW, UK

    Phil Ineson

Authors
  1. Alexandru Milcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Lukac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Phil Ineson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandru Milcu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milcu, A., Lukac, M. & Ineson, P. The role of closed ecological systems in carbon cycle modelling. Climatic Change 112, 709–716 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0234-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0234-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation