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.

Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2

Nature volume 538, pages 499–501 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Uncertainties in the response of vegetation to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations1,2 contribute to the large spread in projections of future climate change3,4. Climate–carbon cycle models generally agree that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations will enhance terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP). However, the magnitude of this CO2 fertilization effect varies from a 20 per cent to a 60 per cent increase in GPP for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations in model studies5,6,7. Here we demonstrate emergent constraints8,9,10,11 on large-scale CO2 fertilization using observed changes in the amplitude of the atmospheric CO2 seasonal cycle that are thought to be the result of increasing terrestrial GPP12,13,14. Our comparison of atmospheric CO2 measurements from Point Barrow in Alaska and Cape Kumukahi in Hawaii with historical simulations of the latest climate–carbon cycle models demonstrates that the increase in the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal cycle at both measurement sites is consistent with increasing annual mean GPP, driven in part by climate warming, but with differences in CO2 fertilization controlling the spread among the model trends. As a result, the relationship between the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal cycle and the magnitude of CO2 fertilization of GPP is almost linear across the entire ensemble of models. When combined with the observed trends in the seasonal CO2 amplitude, these relationships lead to consistent emergent constraints on the CO2 fertilization of GPP. Overall, we estimate a GPP increase of 37 ± 9 per cent for high-latitude ecosystems and 32 ± 9 per cent for extratropical ecosystems under a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the basis of the Point Barrow and Cape Kumukahi records, respectively.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1: Comparison of CO2 seasonal amplitudes for CMIP5 historical simulations and observations.
Figure 2: Comparison of simulated annual mean GPP at a doubling of CO2 in the 1%BGC simulations.
Figure 3: Emergent constraints on the relative increase of large-scale GPP for a doubling of CO2.

References

  1. 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  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Leakey, A. D. B. et al. Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2859–2876 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciais, P. et al. in Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al. ) 465–570 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)

  5. Anav, A. et al. Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models. J. Clim. 26, 6801–6843 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Allen, M. R. & Ingram, W. J. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature 419, 224–232 (2002)

    CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall, A. & Qu, X. Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L03502 (2006)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cox, P. M. et al. Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability. Nature 494, 341–344 (2013)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V. & Friedlingstein, P. Emergent constraints on climate-carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system models. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 794–807 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Keeling, C. D., Chin, J. F. S. & Whorf, T. P. Increased activity of northern vegetation inferred from atmospheric CO2 measurements. Nature 382, 146–149 (1996)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao, F. & Zeng, N. Continued increase in atmospheric CO2 seasonal amplitude in the 21st century projected by the CMIP5 Earth system models. Earth Syst. Dynam. 5, 423–439 (2014)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gray, J. M. et al. Direct human influence on atmospheric CO2 seasonality from increased cropland productivity. Nature 515, 398–401 (2014)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Graven, H. D. et al. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science 341, 1085–1089 (2013)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Keeling, C., Whorf, T., Wahlen, M. & Plicht, J. Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980. Nature 375, 666–670 (1995)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Piao, S. et al. Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451, 49–52 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Eyring, V. et al. ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1747–1802 (2016)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Horizon 2020 European Union’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation under Grant Agreement No. 641816, the Coordinated Research in Earth Systems and Climate: Experiments, kNowledge, Dissemination and Outreach (CRESCENDO) project and the DLR Klimarelevanz von atmosphärischen Spurengasen, Aerosolen und Wolken: Auf dem Weg zu EarthCARE und MERLIN (KliSAW) project. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM), which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups 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 the development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. We thank ETH Zurich for help in accessing data from the ESGF archive.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany

    Sabrina Wenzel & Veronika Eyring

  2. College of Engineering, Mathematics & Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK

    Peter M. Cox & Pierre Friedlingstein

Authors
  1. Sabrina Wenzel
    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. Veronika Eyring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pierre Friedlingstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.W. led the study and analysis and drafted the manuscript with support from P.M.C. V.E. and P.F. contributed to the concept of the paper and the interpretation of the results. All co-authors commented on and provided edits to the original manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabrina Wenzel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information

Nature thanks V. Brovkin and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Simulated and observed CO2 concentrations.

a, b, Time series of monthly mean atmospheric CO2 between 1860 and 2005 at BRW (a) and KMK (b) at surface level, as simulated by the CMIP5 models in the historical simulations and observed (black lines) at each measuring site.

Extended Data Figure 2 Annual mean high-latitude GPP (60° N–90° N) against the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal cycle at BRW for each of the CMIP5 ESMs.

The markers show the values for the individual years between 1850 and 2005 for the CMIP5 historical simulations and lines show the linear best fit for each model. The black line indicates the multi-model mean of the CMIP5 models.

Extended Data Figure 3 Comparison of high-latitude GPP (60° N–90° N) versus annual mean CO2.

a, The correlation for both the historical (asterisks) and the 1%BGC (circles) CMIP5 model simulations. The markers show the values for the individual years and lines show the linear best fit for each model. b, The comparison of the gradients in a for each model. The red solid line shows the gradient of the correlation and the black dashed line indicates a 1:1 correlation.

Extended Data Table 1 Summary data for the changes in high-latitude GPP (60° N–90° N) and the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal cycle at BRW
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Summary data for changes in extratropical GPP (30° N–90° N) and the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal cycle at KMK
Full size table

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wenzel, S., Cox, P., Eyring, V. et al. Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2. Nature 538, 499–501 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19772

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19772

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