Advertisement

Potential roles of CO2 fertilization, nitrogen deposition, climate change, and land use and land cover change on the global terrestrial carbon uptake in the twenty-first century

  • Thejna Tharammal
  • Govindasamy Bala
  • Devaraju Narayanappa
  • Ramakrishna Nemani
Article

Abstract

Anthropogenic influences and global climate change are expected to alter the land carbon stocks in the future. In this modeling study, using the NCAR Community Earth System Model (CESM), we assess the relative importance of CO2 fertilization, nitrogen deposition, climate change, and land use and land cover changes (LULCC) on the land carbon uptake in three future scenarios used in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). Our simulations show that CO2 fertilization is the primary driver of the increase in net primary production (NPP) and total ecosystem carbon (TEC) in the representative concentrations pathway 2.6 (RCP2.6), RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 scenarios. The effect of nitrogen deposition on NPP and TEC in the future scenarios is small. Climate warming causes increases in NPP in the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, but it leads to loss of TEC in the future scenarios because of increased heterotrophic respiration. LULCC leads to an enhancement of NPP in the future scenarios due to post-harvest regrowth in the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios, and due to afforestation in the RCP4.5 scenario. We find that land is a source of carbon in the RC8.5 and RCP2.6 scenarios mainly because of LULCC and climate change, but afforestation and CO2 fertilization in the RCP4.5 scenario facilitate the land to be a sink. Our findings, albeit from a single model, are in broader agreement with other studies that highlight the need for better land management practices and moderation in climate change for a continued land carbon sink.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a Grant from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. Dr. N. Devaraju is supported by European Commission FP7 LUC4C project (http://luc4c.eu, Grant no. 603542). We acknowledge the Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, for providing the HPC cluster facilities to carry out the model simulations.

Supplementary material

382_2018_4388_MOESM1_ESM.docx (6.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 6677 KB)

References

  1. Anav A, Friedlingstein P, Kidston M, Bopp L, Ciais P, Cox P, Jones C, Jung M, Myneni R, Zhu Z (2013) Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models. J Clim 26(18):6801–6843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong E, Valdes P, House J, Singarayer J (2016) The role of CO2 and dynamic vegetation on the impact of temperate land-use change in the HadCM3 coupled climate model. Earth Interact.  https://doi.org/10.1175/EI-D-15-0036.1 Google Scholar
  3. Arora V (2002) Modeling vegetation as a dynamic component in soil–vegetation–atmosphere transfer schemes and hydrological models. Rev Geophys 40:1006.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001RG000103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora VK, Boer GJ (2014) Terrestrial ecosystems response to future changes in climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Biogeosciences 11:4157–4171.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4157-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baccini A, Walker W, Carvalho L et al (2017) Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358:230–234.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bala G, Caldeira K, Mirin A et al (2006) Biogeophysical effects of CO2 fertilization on global climate. Tellus Ser B Chem Phys Meteorol 58:620–627.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00210.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bala G, Caldeira K, Wickett M et al (2007) Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:6550–6555.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608998104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bala G, Krishna S, Devaraju N et al (2012) An estimate of equilibrium sensitivity of global terrestrial carbon cycle using NCAR CCSM4. Clim Dyn 40:1671–1686.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1495-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bala G, Devaraju N, Chaturvedi RK et al (2013) Nitrogen deposition: How important is it for global terrestrial carbon uptake. Biogeosciences 10:7147–7160.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7147-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ballantyne AP, Alden CB, Miller JB et al (2012) Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years. Nature 487:70–72.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boer GJ, Arora V (2009) Temperature and concentration feedbacks in the carbon cycle. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036220 Google Scholar
  12. Boer GJ, Arora VK (2013) Feedbacks in emission-driven and concentration-driven global carbon budgets. J Clim 26:3326–3341.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00365.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonan GB, Levis S (2010) Quantifying carbon–nitrogen feedbacks in the Community Land Model (CLM4). Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042430 Google Scholar
  14. Boysen LR, Brovkin V, Arora VK et al (2014) Global and regional effects of land-use change on climate in 21st century simulations with interactive carbon cycle. Earth Syst Dyn Discuss 5:443–472.  https://doi.org/10.5194/esdd-5-443-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brovkin V, Boysen L, Arora VK et al (2013) Effect of anthropogenic land-use and land-cover changes on climate and land carbon storage in CMIP5 projections for the twenty-first century. J Clim 26:6859–6881.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00623.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheng L, Zhang L, Wang YP et al (2017) Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nat Commun.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00114-5 Google Scholar
  17. Cramer W, Field CB (1999) Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): introduction. Glob Change Biol 5:iii–iv.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies-Barnard T, Valdes PJ, Singarayer JS et al (2015) Quantifying the relative importance of land cover change from climate and land use in the representative concentration pathways. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 29:842–853.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devaraju N, Bala G, Modak A (2015) Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: remote versus local effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:3257–3262.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423439112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Devaraju N, Bala G, Caldeira K, Nemani R (2016) A model based investigation of the relative importance of CO2-fertilization, climate warming, nitrogen deposition and land use change on the global terrestrial carbon uptake in the historical period. Clim Dyn 47:173–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2830-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doney SC, Lindsay K, Fung I, John J (2006) Natural variability in a stable, 1000-yr global coupled climate-carbon cycle simulation. J Clim 19:3033–3054.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3783.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feddema JJ (2005) The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Science 310:1674–1678.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1118160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friedlingstein P, Fung I, Holland E et al (1995) On the contribution of CO2 fertilization to the missing biospheric sink. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 9:541–556.  https://doi.org/10.1029/95gb02381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedlingstein P, Dufresne J-L, Cox PM, Rayner P (2003) How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? Tellus B 55:692–700.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01461.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R et al (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Clim 19:3337–3353.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3800.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friedlingstein P, Meinshausen M, Arora VK et al (2014) Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J Clim 27:511–526.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00579.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galloway JN, Dentener FJ, Capone DG et al (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-0370-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gent PR, Danabasoglu G, Donner LJ et al (2011) The community climate system model version 4. J Clim 24:4973–4991.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Houghton RA (2007) Balancing the global carbon budget. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 35:313–347.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hurrell JW, Holland MM, Gent PR et al (2013) The community earth system model: a framework for collaborative research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:1339–1360.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hurtt GC, Chini LP, Frolking S et al (2011) Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim Change 109:117–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0153-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keenan TF, Hollinger DY, Bohrer G et al (2013) Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499:324–327.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keppel-Aleks G, Randerson JT, Lindsay K et al (2013) Atmospheric carbon dioxide variability in the community earth system model: evaluation and transient dynamics during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. J Clim 26:4447–4475.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00589.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kimball BA, Mauney JR, Nakayama FS, Idso SB (1993) Effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on vegetation. Vegetation 104–105:65–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00048145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kondo M, Kazuhito I, Patra PK et al (2018) Plant regrowth as a driver of recent enhancement of terrestrial CO2 uptake. Geophys Res Lett 45:4820–4830.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lamarque JF, Kyle PP, Meinshausen M et al (2011) Global and regional evolution of short-lived radiatively-active gases and aerosols in the representative concentration pathways. Clim Change 109:191–212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0155-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones C, Robertson E, Arora V, Friedlingstein P, Shevliakova E, Bopp L, Brovkin V, Hajima T, Kato E, Kawamiya M, Liddicoat S, Lindsay K, Reick CH, Roelandt C, Segschneider J, Tjiputra J (2013) Twenty-first-century compatible CO2 emissions and airborne fraction simulated by CMIP5 earth system models under four representative concentration pathways. J Clim 26(13):4398–4413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lamarque JF, Shindell DT, Josse B et al (2013) The atmospheric chemistry and climate model intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): overview and description of models, simulations and climate diagnostics. Geosci Model Dev 6:179–206.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawrence PJ, Feddema JJ, Bonan GB et al (2012) Simulating the biogeochemical and biogeophysical impacts of transient land cover change and wood harvest in the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4) from 1850 to 2100. J Clim 25:3071–3095.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00256.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrence DM, Hurtt GC, Arneth A et al (2016) The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: Rationale and experimental design. Geosci Model Dev 9:2973–2998.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawrence PJ, Lawrence DM, Hurtt GC (2018) Attributing the carbon cycle impacts of CMIP5 historical and future land use and land cover change in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1). J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 123:1732–1755.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JG004348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Canadell JG et al (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat Geosci 2:831–836.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li P, Peng C, Wang M et al (2017) Quantification of the response of global terrestrial net primary production to multifactor global change. Ecol Indic 76:245–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahowald N, Lo F, Zheng Y et al (2016) Projections of leaf area index in earth system models. Earth Syst Dyn 7:211–229.  https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-211-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meehl GA, Washington WM, Arblaster JM et al (2012) Climate system response to external forcings and climate change projections in CCSM4. J Clim 25:3661–3683.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00240.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meinshausen M, Smith SJ, Calvin K et al (2011) The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim Change 109:213–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nemani RR, Keeling CD, Hashimoto H et al (2003) Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560–1563.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oleson KW, Lawrence DM, Gordon B et al (2010) Technical description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM). Technical report NCAR/TN-478 + STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  50. Piao S, Sitch S, Ciais P et al (2013) Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO2 trends. Glob Change Biol 19:2117–2132.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74:887–935.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scharlemann JP, Tanner EV, Hiederer R, Kapos V (2014) Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Manag 5:81–91.  https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skinner CB, Poulsen CJ, Chadwick R, Diffenbaugh NS, Fiorella RP (2017) The role of plant CO2 physiological forcing in shaping future daily-scale precipitation. J Clim 30(7):2319–2340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ et al (2011) RCP4.5: A pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim Change 109:77–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thornton PE, Lamarque JF, Rosenbloom NA, Mahowald NM (2007) Influence of carbon–nitrogen cycle coupling on land model response to CO2 fertilization and climate variability. Glob Biogeochem Cycles.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002868 Google Scholar
  57. Todd-Brown KEO, Randerson JT, Post WM et al (2013) Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations. Biogeosciences 10:1717–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Townsend AR, Braswell BH, Holland EA, Penner JE (1996) Spatial and temporal patterns in terrestrial carbon storage due to deposition of fossil fuel nitrogen. Ecol Appl 6:806–814.  https://doi.org/10.1007/S10021-011-9432-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Vuuren DP, Den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL et al (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Change 81:119–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9172-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Smith WK, Todd-Brown K (2015) Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat Geosci 8:441–444.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Winckler J, Reick CH, Pongratz J (2017) Why does the locally induced temperature response to land cover change differ across scenarios? Geophys Res Lett 44:3833–3840.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zaehle S, Friedlingstein P, Friend AD (2010) Terrestrial nitrogen feedbacks may accelerate future climate change. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041345 Google Scholar
  63. Zhao M, Running SW (2010) Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science 329:940–943.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhu Z, Piao S, Myneni RB et al (2016) Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat Clim Change 6:791–795.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Divecha Center for Climate Change, Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  3. 3.Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement LSCE/IPSL, Unité mixte CEA-CNRS-UVSQUniversité Paris-SaclayGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  4. 4.NASA Ames Research CenterMountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations