Does the integration of the dynamic nitrogen cycle in a terrestrial biosphere model improve the long-term trend of the leaf area index?
The carbon cycle strongly interacts with the nitrogen cycle. Several observations show that the effects of global change on primary production and carbon storage in plant biomass and soils are partially controlled by N availability. Nevertheless, only a small number of terrestrial biosphere models represent explicitly the nitrogen cycle, despite its importance on the carbon cycle and on climate. These models are difficult to evaluate at large spatiotemporal scales because of the scarcity of data at the global scale over a long time period. In this study, we benchmark the capacity of the O–CN global terrestrial biosphere model to reproduce temporal changes in leaf area index (LAI) at the global scale observed by NOAA_AVHRR satellites over the period 1982–2002. Using a satellite LAI product based on the normalized difference vegetation index of global inventory monitoring and modelling studies dataset, we estimate the long-term trend of LAI and we compare it with the results from the terrestrial biosphere models, either with (O–CN) or without (O–C) a dynamic nitrogen cycle coupled to the carbon–water-energy cycles. In boreal and temperate regions, including a dynamic N cycle (O–CN) improved the fit between observed and modeled temporal changes in LAI. In contrast, in the tropics, simulated LAI from the model without the dynamic N cycle (O–C) better matched observed changes in LAI over time. Despite differential regional trends, the satellite estimate suggests an increase in the global average LAI during 1982–2002 by 0.0020 m2 m−2 y−1. Both versions of the model substantially overestimated the rate of change in LAI over time (0.0065 m2 m−2 y−1 for O–C and 0.0057 m2 m−2 y−1 for O–CN), suggesting that some additional limitation mechanisms are missing in the model. We also estimated the relative importance of climate, CO2 and N deposition as potential drivers of the temporal changes in LAI. We found that recent climate change better explained temporal changes in LAI when the dynamic N cycle was included in the model (higher ranked fit for O–CN vs. O–C). Using the O–C configuration to estimate the direct effect of climate on LAI, we quantified the importance of climate-N cycle feedbacks in explaining the LAI response. We found that the warming-induced release of N from soil organic matter decomposition explains 17.5 % of the global trend in LAI over time, however, reaching up to 40.9 % explained variance in the boreal zone, which is a more important contribution than increasing anthropogenic nitrogen deposition. Our analysis supports a strong connection between warming, N cycling, and vegetation productivity. These findings underscore the importance of including N cycling in global-scale models of vegetation response to environmental change.
KeywordsLeaf area index Carbon cycle Nitrogen cycle Model benchmarking Nitrogen mineralization
The authors acknowledge financial support from the European FP7 projects COMBINE and Greencycles II (grant agreement n° ) and J. Ryder for his valuable comments on the manuscript.
- Baker DF, Law RM, Gurney KR, Rayner P, Peylin P, Denning AS, Bousquet P, Bruhwiler L, Chen Y-H, Ciais P, Fung IY, Heimann M, John J, Maki T, Maksyutov S, Masarie K, Prather M, Pak B, Taguchi S, Zhu Z (2006) TransCom 3 inversion intercomparison: Impact of transport model errors on the interannual variability of regional CO2 fluxes, 1988–2003. Global Biogeochem Cy 20:1988–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cramer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI, Prentice IC, Betts RA, Brovkin V, Cox PM, V Fisher, Foley JA, Friend AD, Kucharik C, Lomas MR, Ramankutty N, Sitch S, Smith B (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Global Change Biol 7:357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dentener F, Drevet J, Lamarque JF, Bey I, Eickhout B, Fiore AM, Hauglustaine D, Horowitz LW, Krol M, Kulshrestha UC, Lawrence M, Galy-Lacaux C, Rast S, Shindell D, Stevenson D, Van Noije T, Atherton C, Bell N, Bergman D, Butler T, Cofala J, Collins B, Doherty R, Ellingsen K, Galloway J, Gauss M, Montanaro V, Müller JF, Pitari G, Rodriguez J, Sanderson M, Solmon F, Strahan S, Schultz M, Sudo K, Szopa S, Wild O (2006) Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and global scales: a multimodel evaluation. Global Biogeochem Cy 20:GB4003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, Von Bloh W, Brovkin V, Cadule P, Doney S, Eby M, Fung I, Bala G, John J, Jones C, Joos F, Kato T, Kawamiya M, Knorr W, Lindsay K, Matthews HD, Raddatz T, Rayner P, Reick C, Roeckner E, Schnitzler KG, Schnur R, Strassmann K, Weaver AJ, Yoshikawa C, Zeng N (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Climate 19:3337–3353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Keeling CD, Whorf TP (2006) Atmopheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network, Carbon Dioxide Inf. Anal. Cent., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Oak Ridge, TennGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell TD, Carter TR, Jones PD, Hulme M, New M (2004) A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901–2000) and 16 scenarios (2001–2100). Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, p 33Google Scholar
- Piao SL, Ciais P, Friedlingstein P, Peylin P, Reichstein M, Luyssaert S, Margolis H, Fang YJ, Barr A, Chen AP, Grelle A, Hollinger DY, Laurilia T, Lindroth A, Richardson AD, Vesala T (2008) Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451:49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Richardson CW, Wright DA (1984) WGEN: a model for generating daily weather variables. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-8, 83 pGoogle Scholar
- Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964) A quantitative analysis of the plant form: the pipe model theory. Jpn J Ecol 14:98–104Google Scholar
- Sitch S, Huntingford C, Gedney N, Levy PE, Lomas M, Piao SL, Betts R, Ciais P, Cox P, Friedlingstein P, Jones CD, Prentice IC, Woodward FI (2008) Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs). Global Change Biol 14:2015–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zaehle S, Friend AD (2010) Carbon and nitrogen cycle dynamics in the O–CN land surface model: 1. Model description, site-scale evaluation, and sensitivity to parameter estimates. Global Biogeochem Cy 24:GB1005Google Scholar
- Zaehle S, Friend AD, Friedlingstein P, Dentener F, Peylin P, Schulz M (2010a) Carbon and nitrogen cycle dynamics in the O–CN land surface model: 2. Role of the nitrogen cycle in the historical terrestrial carbon balance. Global Biogeochem Cy 24:GB1006Google Scholar