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.

Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production

Abstract

Growth in terrestrial gross primary production (GPP)—the amount of carbon dioxide that is ‘fixed’ into organic material through the photosynthesis of land plants—may provide a negative feedback for climate change1,2. It remains uncertain, however, to what extent biogeochemical processes can suppress global GPP growth3. As a consequence, modelling estimates of terrestrial carbon storage, and of feedbacks between the carbon cycle and climate, remain poorly constrained4. Here we present a global, measurement-based estimate of GPP growth during the twentieth century that is based on long-term atmospheric carbonyl sulfide (COS) records, derived from ice-core, firn and ambient air samples5. We interpret these records using a model that simulates changes in COS concentration according to changes in its sources and sinks—including a large sink that is related to GPP. We find that the observation-based COS record is most consistent with simulations of climate and the carbon cycle that assume large GPP growth during the twentieth century (31% ± 5% growth; mean ± 95% confidence interval). Although this COS analysis does not directly constrain models of future GPP growth, it does provide a global-scale benchmark for historical carbon-cycle simulations.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Measurement-based histories of atmospheric COS at South Pole and global sites.
Figure 2: A priori distribution of present-day magnitudes and alternative time trends for components of the global COS budget.
Figure 3: Long-term trends in global atmospheric COS concentrations.
Figure 4: Comparison of carbon/climate models.

References

  1. 1

    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)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. B. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 436–441 (2015)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

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

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Arneth, A. et al. Terrestrial biogeochemical feedbacks in the climate system. Nat. Geosci. 3, 525–532 (2010)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Montzka, S. A. et al. A 350-year atmospheric history for carbonyl sulfide inferred from Antarctic firn air and air trapped in ice. J. Geophys. Res. 109, D22302 (2004)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Field, C. B., Lobell, D. B., Peters, H. A. & Chiariello, N. R. Feedbacks of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 1–29 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Ehlers, I . et al. Detecting long-term metabolic shifts using isotopomers: CO2-driven suppression of photorespiration in C3 plants over the 20th century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15585–15590 (2015)

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Sandoval-Soto, L. et al. Global uptake of carbonyl sulfide (COS) by terrestrial vegetation: estimates corrected by deposition velocities normalized to the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2). Biogeosciences 2, 125–132 (2005)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Stimler, K., Montzka, S. A., Berry, J. A., Rudich, Y. & Yakir, D. Relationships between carbonyl sulfide (COS) and CO2 during leaf gas exchange. New Phytol. 186, 869–878 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Wohlfahrt, G. et al. Carbonyl sulfide (COS) as a tracer for canopy photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance: potential and limitations. Plant Cell Environ. 35, 657–667 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Hilton, T. W. et al. Large variability in ecosystem models explains uncertainty in a critical parameter for quantifying GPP with carbonyl sulphide. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meterol. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v67.26329 (2015)

  12. 12

    Commane, R . et al. Seasonal fluxes of carbonyl sulfide in a midlatitude forest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14162–14167 (2015)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Maseyk, K . et al. Sources and sinks of carbonyl sulfide in an agricultural field in the Southern Great Plains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9064–9069 (2014)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Whelan, M. E. et al. Carbonyl sulfide exchange in soils for better estimates of ecosystem carbon uptake. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 3711–3726 (2016)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Campbell, J. E. et al. Photosynthetic control of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide during the growing season. Science 322, 1085–1088 (2008)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Montzka, S. A. et al. On the global distribution, seasonality, and budget of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide (COS) and some similarities to CO2 . J. Geophys. Res. 112, D09302 (2007)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Berry, J. et al. A coupled model of the global cycles of carbonyl sulfide and CO2: a possible new window on the carbon cycle. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 842–852 (2013)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Campbell, J. E. et al. Atmospheric carbonyl sulfide sources from anthropogenic activity: implications for carbon cycle constraints. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 3004–3010 (2015)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Andreae, M. O. & Barnard, W. R. The marine chemistry of dimethylsulfide. Mar. Chem. 14, 267–279 (1984)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Andreae, M. O. & Ferek, R. J. Photochemical production of carbonyl sulfide in seawater and its emission to the atmosphere. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 6, 175–183 (1992)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Launois, T., Belviso, S., Bopp, L., Fichot, C. & Peylin, P. A new model for the global biogeochemical cycle of carbonyl sulfide–Part 1: assessment of direct marine emissions with an oceanic general circulation and biogeochemistry model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 2295–2312 (2015)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Aydin, M. et al. Changes in atmospheric carbonyl sulfide over the last 54,000 years inferred from measurements in Antarctic ice cores. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 121, 1943–1954 (2016)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Mahieu, E. et al. Observed trends in total vertical column abundances of atmospheric gases from IR solar spectra recorded at the Jungfraujoch. J. Atmos. Chem. 28, 227–243 (1997)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Rinsland, C. P. et al. Measurements of long-term changes in atmospheric OCS (carbonyl sulfide) from infrared solar observations. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 109, 2679–2686 (2008)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Lejeune, B. et al. Optimized approach to retrieve information on atmospheric carbonyl sulfide (OCS) above the Jungfraujoch station and change in its abundance since 1995. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 186, 81–95 (2017)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Welp, L. R. et al. Interannual variability in the oxygen isotopes of atmospheric CO2 driven by El Nino. Nature 477, 579–582 (2011)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Zhu, Z. et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 791–795 (2016)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Kolby Smith, W. et al. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 306–310 (2016)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Hansen, J., Kharecha, P. & Sato, M. Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 011006 (2013)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Drake, J. E. et al. Increases in the flux of carbon belowground stimulate nitrogen uptake and sustain the long-term enhancement of forest productivity under elevated CO2 . Ecol. Lett. 14, 349–357 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V. & Friedlingstein, P. Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2 . Nature 539, 499–501 (2016)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Li, W . et al. Reducing uncertainties in decadal variability of the global carbon budget with multiple datasets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 13104–13108 (2016)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank P. Friedlingstein for climate-model data; D. Streets for inventory suggestions; and P. Koch, C. Tebaldi, D. Lobell, P. Peylin, N. Petra, A. Wolf, J. Schnoor and C. Field for comments on our study. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences (grant no. DE-SC0011999). S.A.M. acknowledges support in part from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s AC4 program, and the firn-modelling expertise of M. Battle and M. Aydin. M.L. was supported by the Academy of Finland as part of the INQUIRE project (grant no. 267442). L.B. acknowledges support from H2020 project CRESCENDO (grant 641816). T.L. was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) early career starting grant SOLCA (grant no. 338264).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.E.C. and J.A.B. designed the research. J.E.C. conducted all simulations and analysis, except ocean simulations, which were run by L.B., T.L. and S.B., Markov chain Monte Carlo scenarios, which were run by M.L., and relative uptake simulations, which were run by U.S. J.E.C. wrote the paper with input from all co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. E. Campbell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information Nature thanks P. Friedlingstein, N. Gruber, D. Yakir and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Tables 1-3, Supplementary Figures 1-18 and additional references. (PDF 3258 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campbell, J., Berry, J., Seibt, U. et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature 544, 84–87 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22030

Download citation

Further reading

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

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