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:

Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization

Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 306–310 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Atmospheric mass balance analyses suggest that terrestrial carbon (C) storage is increasing, partially abating the atmospheric [CO2] growth rate1, although the continued strength of this important ecosystem service remains uncertain2,3,4,5,6. Some evidence suggests that these increases will persist owing to positive responses of vegetation growth (net primary productivity; NPP) to rising atmospheric [CO2] (that is, ‘CO2 fertilization’)5,6,7,8. Here, we present a new satellite-derived global terrestrial NPP data set9,10,11, which shows a significant increase in NPP from 1982 to 2011. However, comparison against Earth system model (ESM) NPP estimates reveals a significant divergence, with satellite-derived increases (2.8 ± 1.50%) less than half of ESM-derived increases (7.6 ± 1.67%) over the 30-year period. By isolating the CO2 fertilization effect in each NPP time series and comparing it against a synthesis of available free-air CO2 enrichment data12,13,14,15, we provide evidence that much of the discrepancy may be due to an over-sensitivity of ESMs to atmospheric [CO2], potentially reflecting an under-representation of climatic feedbacks16,17,18,19,20 and/or a lack of representation of nutrient constraints21,22,23,24,25. Our understanding of CO2 fertilization effects on NPP needs rapid improvement to enable more accurate projections of future C cycle–climate feedbacks; we contend that better integration of modelling, satellite and experimental approaches offers a promising way forward.

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: Temporal changes in NPP.
Figure 2: Spatial and latitudinal changes in NPP from 1982 to 2011.
Figure 3: The sensitivity of NPP to VPD.
Figure 4: The sensitivity of NPP to atmospheric [CO2].

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ballantyne, A. P., Alden, C. B., Miller, J. B., Tans, P. P. & White, J. W. C. Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years. Nature 488, 70–72 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models. J. Clim. 26, 5289–5314 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Friend, A. D. et al. Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2 . Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3280–3285 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sitch, S. et al. Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs). Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2015–2039 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Piao, S. et al. Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO2 trends. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2117–2132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. F. Effects of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 436–441 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Keenan, T. F. et al. Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499, 324–327 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science 1667, 2–5 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Running, S. W. et al. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54, 547–560 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhu, Z., Bi, J., Pan, Y., Ganguly, S. & Anav, A. Photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR) 3g derived from global inventory modeling and mapping studies (GIMMS) normalized difference vegetation index. Remote Sens. 5, 927–948 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Norby, R. J. et al. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18052–18056 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Reich, P. B. et al. Do species and functional groups differ in acquisition and use of C, N and water under varying atmospheric CO2 and N availability regimes? A field test with 16 grassland species. New Phytol. 150, 435–448 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zaehle, S. et al. Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate free-Air CO2 enrichment studies. New Phytol. 202, 803–822 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morgan, J. A. et al. C4 grasses prosper as carbon dioxide eliminates desiccation in warmed semi-arid grassland. Nature 476, 202–205 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Donohue, R. J., Roderick, M. L., McVicar, T. R. & Farquhar, G. D. Impacts of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1–5 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Poulter, B. et al. Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle. Nature 509, 600–603 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahlström, A. et al. The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO2 sink. Science 348, 895–899 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reich, P. B., Hobbie, S. E. & Lee, T. D. Plant growth enhancement by elevated CO2 eliminated by joint water and nitrogen limitation. Nature Geosci. 7, 920–924 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Williams, A., Allen, C. & Macalady, A. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nature Clim. Change 3, 292–297 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Norby, R. J., Warren, J. M., Iversen, C. M., Medlyn, B. E. & Mcmurtrie, R. E. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19368–19373 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Oren, R. et al. Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 411, 469–472 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wieder, W. R. et al. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nature Geosci. 8, 441–444 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hungate, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Shaw, M. R., Luo, Y. & Field, C. B. Nitrogen and climate change. Science 302, 1512–1513 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cleveland, C. C. et al. Patterns of new versus recycled primary production in the terrestrial biosphere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 1–5 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beer, C. et al. Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329, 834–838 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jung, M. et al. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations. J. Geophys. Res. 116, 1–16 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu, Y. Y. et al. Global vegetation biomass change (1988–2008) and attribution to environmental and human drivers. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 692–705 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher, J. B., Badgley, G. & Blyth, E. Global nutrient limitation in terrestrial vegetation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 26, GB3007 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Medlyn, B. E. et al. Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nature Clim. Change 5, 528–534 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hilker, T. et al. Vegetation dynamics and rainfall sensitivity of the Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16041–16046 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhou, L. et al. Widespread decline of Congo rainforest greenness in the past decade. Nature 509, 86–90 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Friedl, M. A. et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 168–182 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L. & McMahon, T. A. Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 1633–1644 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu, Y. Y. et al. Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nature Clim. Change 5, 470–474 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Koven, C. D. Boreal carbon loss due to poleward shift in low-carbon ecosystems. Nature Geosci. 6, 452–456 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cleveland, C. C. et al. A comparison of plot-based, satellite and Earth system model estimates of tropical NPP. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, 2111–2121 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cavaleri, M. A., Reed, S. C., Smith, W. K. & Wood, T. E. Urgent need for warming experiments in tropical forests. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 626–644 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Van der Sleen, P. et al. No growth stimulation of tropical trees by 150 years of CO2 fertilization but water-use efficiency increased. Nature Geosci. 8, 24–28 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Clark, D. A., Clark, D. B. & Oberbauer, S. F. Field-quantified responses of tropical rainforest aboveground productivity to increasing CO2 and climatic stress, 1997–2009. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 783–794 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoffman, F. M. et al. Causes and implications of persistent atmospheric carbon dioxide biases in Earth System Models. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 141–162 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Carvalhais, N. et al. Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 514, 213–217 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, US Department of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences Program (Award no. DE-SC-0008168), the US Geological Survey John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis, and the NASA Earth Observing System MODIS project (grant no. NNX08AG87A). Y.Y.L. is supported by an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellowship (project number DE140100200). We also acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 1 of this paper) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. All data presented in this analysis are publicly available; satellite estimates are available at the NTSG data portal (http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/data); CMIP5 experimental scenario data are available at the ESGF data portal (http://esgf.llnl.gov).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA

    W. Kolby Smith, Cory C. Cleveland, Ashley P. Ballantyne & Steven W. Running

  2. Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA

    W. Kolby Smith

  3. Southwest Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Moab, Utah 86001, USA

    Sasha C. Reed

  4. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA

    William R. L. Anderegg

  5. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA

    William R. Wieder

  6. Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

    William R. Wieder

  7. ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science & Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia

    Yi Y. Liu

Authors
  1. W. Kolby Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sasha C. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cory C. Cleveland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ashley P. Ballantyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. William R. L. Anderegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William R. Wieder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yi Y. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Steven W. Running
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.K.S., S.C.R., C.C.C., A.P.B. and S.W.R. designed the study. W.K.S. carried out the analysis and wrote the paper. W.R.L.A. contributed to the climate sensitivity analysis. W.R.W. contributed to the nutrient limitation discussion. Y.Y.L. provided the vegetation optical depth data and helped with associated data interpretation. All authors contributed significantly to the final revisions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Kolby Smith.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kolby Smith, W., Reed, S., Cleveland, C. et al. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nature Clim Change 6, 306–310 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2879

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2879

This article is cited by

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