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.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Constraints on estimating the CO2 fertilization effect emerge

Plants offset a large fraction of Earth’s carbon dioxide emissions, but estimating the size of this carbon sink relies on differing terrestrial-biosphere models. Combining multiple models with data has now reduced the uncertainty.
  1. Chris Huntingford

    1. Chris Huntingford is in the Climate System Department, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca J. Oliver

    1. Rebecca J. Oliver is in the Climate System Department, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

The goal of mitigating climate change requires a global commitment to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid substantial temperature increases. However, achieving this objective is complicated by uncertainty over how much carbon dioxide will be absorbed naturally by trees and other plants. Writing in Nature, Keenan et al.1 have constrained estimates of this uncertainty by drawing empirical links between observations of the current climate and multi-model predictions of the land-carbon sink. The relationships between these observations and predictions are known as emergent constraints.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

Rent or Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Nature 600, 224-225 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03560-w

References

  1. 1.

    Keenan, T. F. et al. Nature 600, 253–258 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Etheridge, D. M. et al. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 101, 4115–4128 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 27–49 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Friedlingstein, P. et al. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3269–3340 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ryu, Y., Berry, J. A. & Baldocchi, D. D. Remote Sens. Environ. 223, 95–114 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C. & Klein, S. Nature Clim. Change 9, 269–278 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Williamson, M. S. et al. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025004 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Arora, V. K. et al. Biogeosciences 17, 4173–4222 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fleischer, K. et al. Nature Geosci. 12, 736–741 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mercado, L. M. et al. N. Phytol. 218, 1462–1477 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Xia, J., Yuan, W., Wang, Y.-P. & Zhang, Q. Sci. Rep. 7, 3341 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

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

Search

Advanced search

Quick links