Satellite Remote Sensing of Terrestrial Net Primary Production for the Pan-Arctic Basin and Alaska
- 177 Downloads
We applied a terrestrial net primary production (NPP) model driven by satellite remote sensing observations of vegetation properties and daily surface meteorology from a regional weather forecast model to assess NPP spatial and temporal variability for the pan-Arctic basin and Alaska from 1982 to 2000. Our results show a general decadal trend of increasing NPP for the region of approximately 2.7%, with respective higher (3.4%) and lower (2.2%) rates for North America and Eurasia. NPP is both spatially and temporally dynamic for the region, driven largely by differences in productivity rates among major biomes and temporal changes in photosynthetic canopy structure and spring and summer air temperatures. Mean annual NPP for boreal forests was approximately 3 times greater than for Arctic tundra on a unit area basis and accounted for approximately 55% of total annual carbon sequestration for the region. The timing of growing season onset inferred from regional network measurements of atmospheric CO2 drawdown in spring was inversely proportional to annual NPP calculations. Our findings indicate that recent regional warming trends in spring and summer and associated advances in the growing season are stimulating net photosynthesis and annual carbon sequestration by vegetation at high latitudes, partially mitigating anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2. These results also imply that regional sequestration and storage of atmospheric CO2 is being altered, with potentially greater instability and acceleration of the carbon cycle at high latitudes.
KeywordsAVHRR arctic tundra boreal forest carbon cycle climate change NPP
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chapin, F.S. III, McGuire, A.D., Randerson, J., Pielke Sr., R., Baldocchi, D., Hobbie, S.E., Roulet, N., Eugster, W., Kasischke, E., Rastetter, E.B., Zimov, A. and Running, S.W.: 2000, ‘Arctic and boreal ecosystems of western North America as components of the climate system’, Global Change Biology 6(1), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Erickson, D.J., Rasch, P.J., Tans, P.P., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Maier-Reimer, E., Six, K., Fischer, C.A. and Walters S.: 1996, ‘The seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2: A study based on the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM2)’, Journal Of Geophysical Research 101, 15079–15097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fleming, R.A.: 2000, ‘Climate change and insect disturbance regimes in Canada's boreal forests’, World Resources Review 12, 520–554.Google Scholar
- Gower, S.T., Vogel, J., Norman, J., Kucharik, C.J., Steele, S. and Stow, T.K.: 1997, ‘Carbon distribution and above ground net primary production in aspen, jack pine and black spruce stands in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada’, Journal of Geophysical Research 102(D24), 29029–29041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heimann, M., Esser, G., Haxeltine, A., Kaduk, J., Kicklighter, D.W., Knorr, W., Kohlmaier, G.H., McGuire, A.D., Melillo, J., Moore, B., Otto, R.D., Prentice, I.C., Sauf, W., Schloss, A., Sitch, S., Wittenberg, U. and Wurth, G.: 1998, ‘Evaluation of terrestrial Carbon Cycle models through simulations of the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2: First results of a model intercomparison study’, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heinsch F.A., Reeves, M., Votava, P. et al.: 2003, User's Guide, GPP and NPP (MOD17A2/A3) Products NASA MODIS Land Algorithm. http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/modis.
- IGBP: 1992, Requirements for Terrestrial Biospheric Data for IGBP Core Projects. IGBP-DIS Working Paper #2 (June 1992), IGBP-DIS, Université de Paris, Paris, France, 24 pp. + app.Google Scholar
- IGBP-DIS: 1995, The IGBP-DIS Global 1 Km Land Cover Data Set: A validation strategy, A. Belward (ed.), IGBP-DIS, Université de Paris, France.Google Scholar
- IPCC: 2001, ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’, in J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. vander Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 881 pp.Google Scholar
- Kistler, R., Kalnay, E., Collins, W., Saha, S., White, G., Wollen, J., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Kanamitsu, M., Kousky, V., van den Dool, H., Jenne, R. and Fiorino, M.: 2001, ‘The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: Monthly means CD-ROM and Documentation’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82, 247–267.Google Scholar
- Lal, R. and Kimble, J.M.: 2000, ‘Soil C pool and dynamics in cold ecoregions’, in R. Lal, J.M. Kimble and B.A. Steward (eds.), Advances in Soil Science: Global Climate Change and Cold Regions Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, New York, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
- McDonald, K.C., Kimball, J.S., Njoku, E., Zimmermann, R. and Zhao, M.: 2004. ‘Variability in springtime thaw in the terrestrial high latitudes: Monitoring a major control on the biospheric assimilation of atmospheric CO2 with spaceborne microwave remote sensing’, Earth Interactions 8(20), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McGuire, A.D., Apps, M., Chapin III, F.S., Dargaville, R., Flannigan, M.D., Kasischke, E.S, Kicklighter, D., Kimball, J., Kurz, W., McCrae, D.J., McDonald, K., Melillo, J., Myneni, R., Stocks, B.J., Verbyla, D.L. and Zhuang, Q.: 2004, ‘Land cover disturbances and feedbacks to the climate system in Canada and Alaska’, in G. Gutman, et al., (eds) Land Change Science. Springer, pp. 139–161, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
- Oelke, C., Zhang, T. and Serreze, M.C.: 2004, ‘Modeling evidence for recent warming of the Arctic soil thermal regime’, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07208, doi:10.1029/2003GL019300.Google Scholar
- Olson, R. J., Johnson, K.R., Zheng, D.L. and Scurlock, J.M.O.: 2001, Global and Regional Ecosystem Modeling: Databases of Model Drivers and Validation Measurements, ORNL Technical Memorandum TM-2001/196, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.Google Scholar
- Schimel, J.P., Kielland, K. and Chapin III, F.S.: 1996, ‘Nutrient availability and uptake by tundra plants’, in J.F. Reynolds and J.D. Tenhunen (eds.), Ecological Studies, Vol. 120, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 203–221.Google Scholar
- Schulze, E.-D., Lloyd, J., Kelliher, F.M., Wirth, C., Rebmann, C., Luehker, B., Mund, M., Knohl, A., Milyukova, I.M., Schulze, W., Ziegler, W., Varlagin, A.B., Sogachev A.F. and Valentini, R. et al.: 1999, ‘Productivity of forests in the Eurosiberian boreal region and their potential to act as a carbon sink – a synthesis’, Global Change Biology 5(6), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stocks, B.J., Mason, J.A., Todd, J.B., Bosch, E.M., Wotton, B.M., Amiro, B.D., Flannigan, M.D., Hirsch, K.G., Logan, K.A., Martell, D.L. and Skinner, W.R.: 2002, ‘Large forest fires in Canada, 1959–1997’, Journal Of Geophysical Research 108(D1), 8149, Doi: 10.1029/2001JD000484.Google Scholar
- Van Cleve, K. and Viereck, L.A.: 1980, ‘Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the boreal forest of Alaska’ in D.C. West, H. H. Shugart and D.B. Botkin (eds.), Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 185–211.Google Scholar