Advertisement

Carbon Cycle and Climate Change

As climate change accelerates, it is important to know the likely impact of climate change on the carbon cycle (see the Perspective by Reich). Gross primary production (GPP) is a measure of the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere every year to fuel photosynthesis. Beer et al. (p. 834, published online 5 July) used a combination of observation and calculation to estimate that the total GPP by terrestrial plants is around 122 billion tons per year; in comparison, burning fossil fuels emits about 7 billion tons annually. Thirty-two percent of this uptake occurs in tropical forests, and precipitation controls carbon uptake in more than 40% of vegetated land. The temperature sensitivity (Q10) of ecosystem respiratory processes is a key determinant of the interaction between climate and the carbon cycle. Mahecha et al. (p. 838, published online 5 July) now show that the Q10 of ecosystem respiration is invariant with respect to mean annual temperature, independent of the analyzed ecosystem type, with a global mean value for Q10 of 1.6. This level of temperature sensitivity suggests a less-pronounced climate sensitivity of the carbon cycle than assumed by recent climate models.

Abstract

Terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) is the largest global CO2 flux driving several ecosystem functions. We provide an observation-based estimate of this flux at 123 ± 8 petagrams of carbon per year (Pg C year−1) using eddy covariance flux data and various diagnostic models. Tropical forests and savannahs account for 60%. GPP over 40% of the vegetated land is associated with precipitation. State-of-the-art process-oriented biosphere models used for climate predictions exhibit a large between-model variation of GPP’s latitudinal patterns and show higher spatial correlations between GPP and precipitation, suggesting the existence of missing processes or feedback mechanisms which attenuate the vegetation response to climate. Our estimates of spatially distributed GPP and its covariation with climate can help improve coupled climate–carbon cycle process models.
Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Already a Subscriber?

Supplementary Material

File (beer_som.pdf)

References and Notes

1
Schulze E.-D., Flora 159, 177 (1970).
2
Poorter H., Remkes C., Lambers H., Carbon and nitrogen economy of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate. Plant Physiol. 94, 621 (1990).
3
DeLucia E. H., Drake J. E., Thomas R. B., Gonzalez-Meler M., Forest carbon use efficiency: Is respiration a constant fraction of gross primary production? Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1157 (2007).
4
Luyssaert S., et al., CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2509 (2007).
5
Litton C. M., Raich J. W., Ryan M. G., Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2089 (2007).
6
I. C. Prentice et al., Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J. Houghton, et al., Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 183–237.
7
B. Saugier, J. Roy, H. A. Mooney, Terrestrial Global Productivity, J. Roy, B. Saugier, H. A. Mooney, Eds. (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2001).
8
Farquhar G. D., et al., Vegetation effects on the isotope composition of oxygen in atmospheric CO2. Nature 363, 439 (1993).
9
Ciais P., et al., A three-dimensional synthesis study of δ18 O in atmospheric CO2 1. Surface fluxes. J. Geophys. Res. 102 (D5), 5857 (1997).
10
Wingate L., et al., The impact of soil microorganisms on the global budget of δ18O in atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 22411 (2009).
11
Sandoval-Soto L., et al., Global uptake of carbonyl sulfide (COS) by terrestrial vegetation: Estimates corrected by deposition velocities normalized to the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2). Biogeosciences 2, 125 (2005).
12
Campbell J. E., et al., Photosynthetic control of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide during the growing season. Science 322, 1085 (2008).
13
Suntharalingam P., Kettle A. J., Montzka S. M., Jacob D. J., Global 3-D model analysis of the seasonal cycle of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide: Implications for terrestrial vegetation uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L19801 (2008).
14
Friedlingstein P., et al., Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337 (2006).
15
Baldocchi D., Turner Review No. 15. ‘Breathing’ of the terrestrial biosphere: Lessons learned from a global network of carbon dioxide flux measurement systems. Aust. J. Bot. 56, 1 (2008).
16
Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
17
Jung M., Reichstein M., Bondeau A., Towards global empirical upscaling of FLUXNET eddy covariance observations: Validation of a model tree ensemble approach using a biosphere model. Biogeosciences 6, 2001 (2009).
18
Papale D., Valentini R., A new assessment of European forests carbon exchanges by eddy fluxes and artificial neural network spatialization. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 525 (2003).
19
Beer C., Reichstein M., Ciais P., Farquhar G. D., Papale D., Mean annual GPP of Europe derived from its water balance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L05401 (2007).
20
Beer C., et al., Temporal and among-site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem level. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB2018 (2009).
21
Monteith J., Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 9, 747 (1972).
22
S. W. Running, P. Thornton, R. Nemani, J. Glassy, Methods in Ecosystem Science, O. Sala, R. Jackson, H. Mooney, R. Howarth, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000), pp. 44–57.
23
H. Lieth, Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, H. Lieth, R. H. Whittaker, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975), pp. 237–263.
24
Myneni R., et al., Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 214 (2002).
25
Gobron N., et al., Evaluation of fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation products for different canopy radiation transfer regimes: Methodology and results using Joint Research Center products derived from SeaWiFS against ground-based estimations. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 111 (D13), D13110 (2006).
26
Baret F., et al., LAI, fAPAR and fCover CYCLOPES global products derived from VEGETATION: Part 1: Principles of the algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ. 110, 275 (2007).
27
New M., Lister D., Hulme M., Makin I., A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Clim. Res. 21, 1 (2002).
28
Mitchell T. D., Jones P. D., An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 693 (2005).
29
A. Simmons, S. Uppala, D. Dee, S. Kobayashi, ECMWF Newsletter No. 110 (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Shinfield Park, Reading, UK, 2007).
30
Median absolute deviation times 1.48.
31
Fekete B., Vorosmarty C., Roads J., Willmott C., Uncertainties in precipitation and their impacts on runoff estimates. J. Clim. 17, 294 (2004).
32
Zhao M., Running S. W., Nemani R. R., Sensitivity of moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) terrestrial primary production to the accuracy of meteorological reanalyses. J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeosci. 111 (G1), G01002 (2006).
33
Rödenbeck C., Houweling S., Gloor M., Heimann M., CO2 flux history 1982–2001 inferred from atmospheric data using a global inversion of atmospheric transport. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 3, 1919 (2003).
34
Bondeau A., et al., Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679 (2007).
35
Mercado L. M., et al., Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014 (2009).
36
R. H. Whittaker, G. E. Likens, Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, H. Lieth, R. H. Whittaker, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975), pp. 305–328.
37
Nemani R. R., et al., Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300, 1560 (2003).
38
Gerten D., et al., Hydrologic resilience of the terrestrial biosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L21408 (2005).
39
G. Meehl et al., in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al., Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2007), pp. 747–845.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 329 | Issue 5993
13 August 2010

Article versions

You are viewing the most recent version of this article.

Submission history

Received: 20 November 2009
Accepted: 8 June 2010
Published in print: 13 August 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Acknowledgments

This work used eddy covariance data acquired by the FLUXNET community and in particular by the following networks: AmeriFlux [U.S. Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Carbon Program (DE-FG02-04ER63917 and DE-FG02-04ER63911)], AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada (supported by CFCAS, NSERC, BIOCAP, Environment Canada, and NRCan), GreenGrass, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux, TCOS-Siberia, and USCCC. We acknowledge the support to the eddy covariance data harmonization provided by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, Integrated Land Ecosystem-Atmosphere Processes Study, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Université Laval and Environment Canada and U.S. Department of Energy and the database development and technical support from Berkeley Water Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Microsoft Research eScience, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of California–Berkeley, and University of Virginia. Remotely sensed land cover, fAPAR, and LAI were available through the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the projects GLC2000 and CYCLOPES. Climate data came from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and the GEWEX project GPCP. We thank Mahendra K. Karki at GMAO/NASA for extracting the MOD17 required surface meteorological variables from the GMAO reanalysis dataset and Maosheng Zhao at NTSG of University of Montana for calculating the respective daytime VPD. We further acknowledge support by the European Commission FP7 projects COMBINE and CARBO-Extreme and a grant from the Max-Planck Society establishing the MPRG Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration. C.B., D.P., M.R., P.C., D.B., and S.L. conceived the study. C.B., C.R., D.P., E.T., M.J., M.R., and N.C. contributed diagnostic modeling results. C.B., A.B., G.B.B., M.L., F.I.W., and N.V. contributed process model results. C.B., E.T., and M.R. performed the analysis. C.B. and M.R. wrote the manuscript. All other coauthors contributed with data or substantial input to the manuscript.

Authors

Affiliations

Christian Beer* [email protected]
Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration Group, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Markus Reichstein
Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration Group, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Enrico Tomelleri
Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration Group, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Philippe Ciais
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de L’Environnement, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Martin Jung
Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration Group, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Nuno Carvalhais
Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration Group, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia (FCT), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal.
Christian Rödenbeck
Biogeochemical Systems, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
M. Altaf Arain
McMaster Centre for Climate Change, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Dennis Baldocchi
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management and Berkeley Atmospheric Science Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Gordon B. Bonan
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
Alberte Bondeau
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 14473 Potsdam, Germany.
Alessandro Cescatti
Climate Change Unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Gitta Lasslop
Biogeochemical Model-Data Integration Group, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Anders Lindroth
Department of Earth and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sweden.
Mark Lomas
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.
Sebastiaan Luyssaert
Departement Biologie, Universiteit Antwerpen, Belgium.
Hank Margolis
Centre d’étude de la forêt, Faculté de foresterie, de géographie et de géomatique, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Keith W. Oleson
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
Olivier Roupsard
Cirad-Persyst, UPR80, Fonctionnement et Pilotage des Ecosystémes de Plantation, Montpellier, France.
CATIE (Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza), Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Elmar Veenendaal
Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Wageningen University, Netherlands.
Nicolas Viovy
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de L’Environnement, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Christopher Williams
Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA.
F. Ian Woodward
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.
Dario Papale
Department of Forest Environment and Resources, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy.

Notes

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage
Altmetrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Cited by
  1. Enhancing bioenergy production with carbon capture of microalgae by ultraviolet spectrum conversion via graphene oxide quantum dots, Chemical Engineering Journal, 429, (132230), (2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.132230
    Crossref
  2. A state-of-the-art review on modeling the biochar effect: Guidelines for beginners, Science of The Total Environment, 802, (149861), (2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149861
    Crossref
  3. An integrated index based on climatic constraints and soil quality to simulate vegetation productivity patterns, Ecological Indicators, 129, (108015), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108015
    Crossref
  4. Potential of hotspot solar‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence for better tracking terrestrial photosynthesis, Global Change Biology, 27, 10, (2144-2158), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15554
    Crossref
  5. Partitioning Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) of CO 2 Using Solar‐Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF) , Geophysical Research Letters, 48, 4, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091247
    Crossref
  6. Resprouting drives successional pathways and the resilience of Caatinga dry forest in human-modified landscapes, Forest Ecology and Management, 482, (118881), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118881
    Crossref
  7. Joint Influence Mechanism of Phenology and Climate on the Dynamics of Gross Primary Productivity: Insights From Temperate Deciduous Broadleaf Forests in North America, Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 126, 4, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JG006049
    Crossref
  8. Principles of Eco-Management in a Large-Scale Ecosystem of Tropical Peatland, Tropical Peatland Eco-management, (63-86), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4654-3
    Crossref
  9. Satellite view of vegetation dynamics and drivers over southwestern China, Ecological Indicators, 130, (108074), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108074
    Crossref
  10. Diagnosing Environmental Controls on Vegetation Greening and Browning Trends Over Alaska and Northwest Canada Using Complementary Satellite Observations, Arctic Hydrology, Permafrost and Ecosystems, (583-613), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50930-9
    Crossref
  11. See more
Loading...

View Options

Get Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS ID LOGIN

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options

Register for free to read this article

As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or register for free to read this article.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media