Letter

Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production

Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

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.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:

    $199

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    , , , & CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19368–19373 (2010)

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

    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)

  6. 6.

    , , & Feedbacks of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 1–29 (2007)

  7. 7.

    . 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)

  8. 8.

    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)

  9. 9.

    , , , & Relationships between carbonyl sulfide (COS) and CO2 during leaf gas exchange. New Phytol. 186, 869–878 (2010)

  10. 10.

    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)

  11. 11.

    et al. Large variability in ecosystem models explains uncertainty in a critical parameter for quantifying GPP with carbonyl sulphide. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meterol. (2015)

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

    . 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)

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

    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)

  17. 17.

    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)

  18. 18.

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

  19. 19.

    & The marine chemistry of dimethylsulfide. Mar. Chem. 14, 267–279 (1984)

  20. 20.

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

  21. 21.

    , , , & 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)

  22. 22.

    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)

  23. 23.

    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)

  24. 24.

    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)

  25. 25.

    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)

  26. 26.

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

  27. 27.

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

  28. 28.

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

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    , & Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 011006 (2013)

  31. 31.

    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)

  32. 32.

    , , & Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2. Nature 539, 499–501 (2016)

  33. 33.

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

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

Author notes

    • T. Launois
    •  & L. Bopp

    Present address: INRA, UMR 1391 ISPA, 33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France (T.L.); Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL, CNRS/ENS/UMPC/X, 75005 Paris, France (L.B.).

Affiliations

  1. Sierra Nevada Research Institute, University of California, Merced, California 95343, USA

    • J. E. Campbell
  2. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California 94305, USA

    • J. A. Berry
  3. Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA

    • U. Seibt
  4. Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, College Park, Maryland 20740, USA

    • S. J. Smith
  5. Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA

    • S. A. Montzka
  6. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, IPSL, CNRS/CEA/UVSQ, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France.

    • T. Launois
    • , S. Belviso
    •  & L. Bopp
  7. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki 00560, Finland

    • M. Laine

Authors

  1. Search for J. E. Campbell in:

  2. Search for J. A. Berry in:

  3. Search for U. Seibt in:

  4. Search for S. J. Smith in:

  5. Search for S. A. Montzka in:

  6. Search for T. Launois in:

  7. Search for S. Belviso in:

  8. Search for L. Bopp in:

  9. Search for M. Laine in:

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.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. E. Campbell.

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

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Tables 1-3, Supplementary Figures 1-18 and additional references.

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.