Search for: All records

Climate change is predicted to change forest composition, decrease carbon, and increase disturbance, with some forests at high risk of all three. 

Forest dynamics arise from the interplay of environmental drivers and disturbances with the demographic processes of recruitment, growth, and mortality, subsequently driving biomass and species composition. However, forest disturbances and subsequent recovery are shifting with global changes in climate and land use, altering these dynamics. Changes in environmental drivers, land use, and disturbance regimes are forcing forests toward younger, shorter stands. Rising carbon dioxide, acclimation, adaptation, and migration can influence these impacts. Recent developments in Earth system models support increasingly realistic simulations of vegetation dynamics. In parallel, emerging remote sensing datasets promise qualitatively new and more abundant data on the underlying processes and consequences for vegetation structure. When combined, these advances hold promise for improving the scientific understanding of changes in vegetation demographics and disturbances. 

Abstract. Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields.Process-based crop models, which represent plant physiological and soil processes, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate and management conditions not sampled in the historical record and new locations to which cultivation may shift.However, process-based crop models differ in many critical details, and their responses to different interacting factors remain only poorly understood.The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment, an activity of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to provide a systematic parameter sweep focused on climate change factors and their interaction with overall soil fertility, to allow both evaluating model behavior and emulating model responses in impact assessment tools.In this paper we describe the GGCMI Phase 2 experimental protocol and its simulation data archive.A total of 12 crop models simulate five crops with systematic uniform perturbations of historical climate, varying CO2, temperature, water supply, and applied nitrogen (“CTWN”) for rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and a second set of simulations represents a type of adaptation by allowing the adjustment of growing season length.We present some crop yield results to illustrate general characteristics of the simulations and potential uses of the GGCMI Phase 2 archive.For example, in cases without adaptation, modeled yields show robust decreases to warmer temperatures in almost all regions, with a nonlinear dependence that means yields in warmer baseline locations have greater temperature sensitivity.Inter-model uncertainty is qualitatively similar across all the four input dimensions but is largest in high-latitude regions where crops may be grown in the future. 

The springtime transition to regional‐scale onset of photosynthesis and net ecosystem carbon uptake in boreal and tundra ecosystems are linked to the soil freeze–thaw state. We present evidence from diagnostic and inversion models constrained by satellite fluorescence and airborneCO₂from 2012 to 2014 indicating the timing and magnitude of spring carbon uptake in Alaska correlates with landscape thaw and ecoregion. Landscape thaw in boreal forests typically occurs in late April (DOY111 ± 7) with a 29 ± 6 day lag until photosynthetic onset. North Slope tundra thaws 3 weeks later (DOY133 ± 5) but experiences only a 20 ± 5 day lag until photosynthetic onset. These time lag differences reflect efficient cold season adaptation in tundra shrub and the longer dehardening period for boreal evergreens. Despite the short transition from thaw to photosynthetic onset in tundra, synchrony of tundra respiration with snow melt and landscape thaw delays the transition from net carbon loss (at photosynthetic onset) to net uptake by 13 ± 7 days, thus reducing the tundra net carbon uptake period. Two globalCO₂inversions using aCASA‐GFEDmodel prior estimate earlier northern high latitude net carbon uptake compared to our regional inversion, which we attribute to (i) early photosynthetic‐onset model prior bias, (ii) inverse method (scaling factor + optimization window), and (iii) sparsity of available AlaskanCO₂observations. Another global inversion with zero prior estimates the same timing for net carbon uptake as the regional model but smaller seasonal amplitude. The analysis of Alaskan eddy covariance observations confirms regional scale findings for tundra, but indicates that photosynthesis and net carbon uptake occur up to 1 month earlier in evergreens than captured by models orCO₂inversions, with better correlation to above‐freezing air temperature than date of primary thaw. Further collection and analysis of boreal evergreen species over multiple years and at additional subarctic flux towers are critically needed.