Abstract
Gross primary production (GPP) is a first-order uncertainty in climate predictions. Large-scale CO2 observations can provide information about the carbon cycle, but are not directly useful for GPP. Recently carbonyl sulfide (COS or OCS) has been proposed as a potential tracer for regional and global GPP. Here we present the first regional assessment of GPP using COS. We focus on the North American growing season—a global hotspot for COS air-monitoring and GPP uncertainty. Regional variability in simulated vertical COS concentration gradients was driven by variation in GPP rather than other modelled COS sources and sinks. Consequently we are able to show that growing season GPP in the Midwest USA significantly exceeds that of any other region of North America. These results are inconsistent with some ecosystem models, but are supportive of new ecosystem models from CMIP6. This approach provides valuable insight into the accuracy of various ecosystem land models.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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).
Arneth, A. et al. Terrestrial biogeochemical feedbacks in the climate system. Nat. Geosci. 3, 525–532 (2010).
Guanter, L. et al. Global and time-resolved monitoring of crop photosynthesis with chlorophyll fluorescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E1327–E1333 (2014).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4 MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).
Huntzinger, D. et al. North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis: terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison. Ecol. Model. 232, 144–157 (2012).
Hilton, T. W., Davis, K. J. & Keller, K. Evaluating terrestrial CO2 flux diagnoses and uncertainties from a simple land surface model and its residuals. Biogeosciences 11, 217–235 (2014).
Schaefer, K. et al. A model-data comparison of gross primary productivity. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G03010 (2012).
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, G00J07 (2011).
Miles, N. L. et al. Large amplitude spatial and temporal gradients in atmospheric boundary layer CO2 mole fractions detected with a tower-based network in the US Upper Midwest. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G01019 (2012).
Schuh, A. E. et al. Evaluating atmospheric CO2 inversions at multiple scales over a highly inventoried agricultural landscape. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1424–1439 (2013).
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).
Campbell, J. E. et al. Photosynthetic control of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide during the growing season. Science 322, 1085–1088 (2008).
Suntharalingam, P., Kettle, A. J., Montzka, S. M. & Jacob, D. J. Global 3-D model analysis of the seasonal cycle of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide: implications for terrestrial vegetation uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L19801 (2008).
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).
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).
Commane, R. et al. Seasonal fluxes of carbonyl sulfide in a midlatitude forest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14162–14167 (2015).
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. 118, 842–852 (2013).
Huete, A. et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 195–213 (2002).
Guanter, L. et al. Retrieval and global assessment of terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from {GOSAT} space measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 121, 236–251 (2012).
Huete, A., Justice, C. & van Leeuwen, W. MODIS Vegetation Index (MOD 13) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Version 3 (1999); http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/atbd/atbd_mod13.pdf
Launois, T., Peylin, P., Belviso, S. & Poulter, B. A new model of the global biogeochemical cycle of carbonyl sulfide—Part 2: use of carbonyl sulfide to constrain gross primary productivity in current vegetation models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 9285–9312 (2015).
Stimler, K., Berry, J. A., Montzka, S. A. & Yakir, D. Association between carbonyl sulfide uptake and 18Δ during gas exchange in C3 and C4 leaves. Plant Physiol. 157, 509–517 (2011).
Hilton, T. W. et al. Large variability in ecosystem models explains uncertainty in a critical parameter for quantifying GPP with carbonyl sulphide. Tellus B 67, 26329 (2015).
Kettle, A. J., Kuhn, U., von Hobe, M., Kesselmeier, J. & Andreae, M. O. Global budget of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide: temporal and spatial variations of the dominant sources and sinks. J. Geophys. Res. 107, ACH 25-1–ACH 25-16 (2002).
Asaf, D. et al. Ecosystem photosynthesis inferred from measurements of carbonyl sulphide flux. Nat. Geosci. 6, 186–190 (2013).
Whelan, M. E. et al. Carbonyl sulfide exchange in soils for better estimates of ecosystem carbon uptake. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 3711–3726 (2016).
Campbell, J. E. et al. Atmospheric carbonyl sulfide sources from anthropogenic activity: implications for carbon cycle constraints. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 3004–3010 (2015).
Zumkehr, A., Hilton, T. W., Whelan, M., Smith, S. & Campbell, J. E. Gridded anthropogenic emissions inventory and atmospheric transport of carbonyl sulfide in the US. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 2169–2178 (2017).
Kulkarni, S. et al. Source sector and region contributions to BC and PM2.5 in Central Asia. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 1683–1705 (2015).
Campbell, J. E. et al. Analysis of anthropogenic CO2 signal in ICARTT using a regional chemical transport model and observed tracers. Tellus B 59, 199–210 (2007).
van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 11707–11735 (2010).
Sellers, P. J. et al. A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMS. Part I: model formulation. J. Clim. 9, 676–705 (1996).
Sellers, P. J. et al. A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMS. Part II: the generation of global fields of terrestrial biophysical parameters from satellite data. J. Clim. 9, 706–737 (1996).
Baker, I. T., Denning, A. S. & Stöckli, R. North American gross primary productivity: regional characterization and interannual variability. Tellus B 62, 533–549 (2010).
Baker, I. T. et al. Seasonal drought stress in the Amazon: reconciling models and observations. J. Geophys. Res. 113, G00B01 (2008).
Liu, J., Price, D. T. & Chen, J. M. Nitrogen controls on ecosystem carbon sequestration: a model implementation and application to Saskatchewan, Canada. Ecol. Model. 186, 178–195 (2005).
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Science 253, 390–395 (1991).
Lokupitiya, E. et al. Incorporation of crop phenology in Simple Biosphere Model (SiBcrop) to improve land-atmosphere carbon exchanges from croplands. Biogeosciences 6, 969–986 (2009).
Corbin, K. D. et al. Assessing the impact of crops on regional CO2 fluxes and atmospheric concentrations. Tellus B 62, 521–532 (2010).
Still, C. J., Berry, J. A., Collatz, G. J. & DeFries, R. S. in ISLSCP Initiative II Collection (eds Hall, F. G. et al.) (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2009); http://daac.ornl.gov from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center.
Stimler, K., Berry, J. A. & Yakir, D. Effects of carbonyl sulfide and carbonic anhydrase on stomatal conductance. Plant Physiol. 158, 524–530 (2012).
Kesselmeier, J., Teusch, N. & Kuhn, U. Controlling variables for the uptake of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide by soil. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 11577–11584 (1999).
Sun, W., Maseyk, K., Lett, C. & Seibt, U. A soil diffusion-reaction model for surface COS flux: COSSM v1. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 3055–3070 (2015).
Ogée, J. et al. A new mechanistic framework to predict OCS fluxes from soils. Biogeosciences 13, 2221–2240 (2016).
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).
Watts, S. F. The mass budgets of carbonyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide. Atmos. Environ. 34, 761–779 (2000).
Blake, N. J. et al. Carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide: large-scale distributions over the western Pacific and emissions from Asia during TRACE-P. J. Geophys. Res. 109, D15S05 (2004).
D’Allura, A. et al. Meteorological and air quality forecasting using the WRF–STEM model during the 2008 ARCTAS field campaign. Atmos. Environ. 45, 6901–6910 (2011).
Canty, A. & Ripley, B. D. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3-18 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).
Davison, A. C. & Hinkley, D. V. Bootstrap Methods and their Applications (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015); https://www.R-project.org
Hilborn, R. & Mangel, M. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data (Princeton Univ. Press, 1997).
Jones, E. et al. SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python (SciPy Developers, 2001); http://www.scipy.org
Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
McKinney, W. in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (eds van der Walt, S. & Millman, J.) 51–56 (2010).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences (DE-SC0011999). This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We acknowledge the assistance of C. Siso and others at NOAA responsible for aircraft sampling program management, sampling, analysis, and logistics. NOAA contributions to this work were supported in part by the NOAA Climate Program Office’s AC4 Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
T.W.H., J.E.C. and J.A.B. designed research; T.W.H. performed research; M.E.W., S.A.M., C.S. and B.R.M. provided observed data; I.T.B. provided model results; S.K. provided transport model code and meteorology drivers; A.Z. provided anthropogenic COS flux inventories; T.W.H. and J.E.C. wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information (PDF 3927 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hilton, T., Whelan, M., Zumkehr, A. et al. Peak growing season gross uptake of carbon in North America is largest in the Midwest USA. Nature Clim Change 7, 450–454 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3272
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3272
This article is cited by
-
Sulfur isotopes ratio of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide constrains its sources
Scientific Reports (2019)
-
Enhanced peak growth of global vegetation and its key mechanisms
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2018)
-
Tracing carbon fixation
Nature Climate Change (2017)