Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Contrasting physiological and structural vegetation feedbacks in climate change simulations

Nature volume 387, pages 796–799 (1997)Cite this article

Abstract

Anthropogenic increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are predicted to cause a warming of the global climate by modifying radiative forcing1. Carbon dioxide concentration increases may make a further contribution to warming by inducing a physiological response of the global vegetation—a reduced stomatal conductance, which suppresses transpiration2. Moreover, a CO2-enriched atmosphere and the corresponding change in climate may also alter the density of vegetation cover, thus modifying the physicalcharacteristics of the land surface to provide yet another climate feedback3,4,5,6. But such feedbacks from changes in vegetation structure have not yet been incorporated into general circulation model predictions of future climate change. Here we use a general circulation model iteratively coupled to an equilibrium vegetation model to quantify the effects of both physiological and structural vegetation feedbacks on a doubled-CO2 climate. On a global scale, changes in vegetation structure are found to partially offset physiological vegetation–climate feedbacks in the long term, but overall vegetation feedbacks provide significant regional-scale effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Derivation of GCM land surface parameters from leaf area index (LAI).
Figure 2: Climate change due to doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2, neglecting vegetation feedback, expressed as differ.
Figure 3: Physiological and structural vegetation change under doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration (2 × CO2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 1995(Cambridge Univ. Press, (1995)).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sellers, P. J. et al. Comparison of radiative and physiological effects of doubled atmospheric CO2on climate. Science 271, 1402–1406 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lean, J. & Rowntree, P. R. AGCM simulation of the impact of Amazonian deforestation on climate using an improved canopy representation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 119, 509–530 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonan, G. B., Pollard, D. & Thompson, S. L. Effects of boreal forest vegetation on global climate. Nature 359, 716–718 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Foley, J. A., Kutzbach, J. E., Coe, M. T. & Levis, S. Feedbacks between climate and boreal forests during the Holocene epoch. Nature 371, 52–54 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallimore, R. G. & Kutzbach, J. E. Role of orbitally induced changes in tundra area in the onset of glaciation. Nature 381, 503–505 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Woodward, F., Smith, T. M. & Emanuel, W. R. Aglobal land primary productivity and phytogeography model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 9, 471–490 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitchell, J. F. B., Johns, T. C., Gregory, J. M. & Tett, S. F. B. Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376, 501–504 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, R. G., Murphy, J. M. & Noguer, M. Simulation of climate change over Europe using a nested regional-climate model. I: Assessment of control climate, including sensitivity to location of lateral boundaries. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 121, 1413–1449 (1995).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Senior, C. A. & Mitchell, J. F. B. Carbon dioxide and climate: the impact of cloud parameterization. J. Clim. 6, 393–418 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, T. H. et al. Cabauw experimental results from the project for intercomparison of land-surface schemes (PILPS). J. Clim.(in the press).

  12. Rowntree, P. R. & Bolton, J. A. Simulation of the atmospheric response to soil moisture anomalies over Europe. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 109, 501–526 (1983).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Beljaars, A. C. M., Viterbo, P., Miller, M. J. & Betts, A. K. The anomolous rainfall over the United States during July 1993: sensitivity to land surface parameterization and soil moisture anomalies. Mon. Weath. Rev. 124, 362–383 (1996).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Milly, P. C. D. & Dunne, K. A. Sensitivity of the global water cycle to the water-holding capacity of land. J. Clim. 7, 506–526 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rowntree, P. R. in Land Surface Evaporation(eds Schmugge, T. J. & Andre, J. C.) 5–30 (Springer, New York, (1991)).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson, M. F. & Henderson-Sellers, A. Aglobal archive of land cover and soils data for use in general circulation climate models. J. Climatol. 5, 119–143 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sellers, P. J., Mitz, Y., Sud, Y. C. & Dalcher, A. Asimple biosphere model (SiB) for use within general circulation models. J. Atmos. Sci. 43, 505–531 (1986).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lowry, W. P. & Lowry, P. P. Fundamentals of Biometeorology. Interactions of Organisms and the Atmosphere Vol. 1 (Peavine, McMinnville, OR, (1989)).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eagleson, P. S. Dynamic Hydrology(McGraw Hill, New York, (1970)).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Halldin, S., Saugier, B. & Pontailler, F. Y. Evapotranspiration of a deciduous forest. Simulation using routine meteorological data. J. Hydrol. 75, 323–341 (1984).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaw, R. H. & Pereira, A. R. Aerodynamic roughness of a plant canopy. Agricult. Meterol. 26, 51–65 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. M. Blyth, J. Foley, R. J. Harding, W. J. Ingram, J. E. Lovelock, J. F. B. Mitchell, P. L. Mitchell, P. R. Rowntree, C. A. Senior, W. J. Shuttleworth, S. F. B. Tett and P. J. Valdes for comments, advice and discussion. This work was supported by the NERC TIGER programme and the UK Department of the Environment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. *Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office, RG12 2SY, Bracknell, UK

    Peter M. Cox

  2. †Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, S10 2TN, Sheffield, UK

    Susan E. Lee & F. Ian Woodward

Authors
  1. Richard A. Betts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter M. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan E. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Ian Woodward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.A.B.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Betts, R., Cox, P., Lee, S. et al. Contrasting physiological and structural vegetation feedbacks in climate change simulations. Nature 387, 796–799 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/42924

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/42924

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing