Article

Reduced North American terrestrial primary productivity linked to anomalous Arctic warming

Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Warming temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have enhanced terrestrial productivity. Despite the warming trend, North America has experienced more frequent and more intense cold weather events during winters and springs. These events have been linked to anomalous Arctic warming since 1990, and may affect terrestrial processes. Here we analyse multiple observation data sets and numerical model simulations to evaluate links between Arctic temperatures and primary productivity in North America. We find that positive springtime temperature anomalies in the Arctic have led to negative anomalies in gross primary productivity over most of North America during the last three decades, which amount to a net productivity decline of 0.31 PgC yr−1 across the continent. This decline is mainly explained by two factors: severe cold conditions in northern North America and lower precipitation in the South Central United States. In addition, United States crop-yield data reveal that during years experiencing anomalous warming in the Arctic, yields declined by approximately 1 to 4% on average, with individual states experiencing declines of up to 20%. We conclude that the strengthening of Arctic warming anomalies in the past decades has remotely reduced productivity over North America.

  • Subscribe to Nature Geoscience for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

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

References

  1. 1.

    , , , & Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386, 698–702 (1997).

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

    et al. Circumpolar Arctic tundra vegetation change is linked to sea ice decline. Earth Intract. 14, 1–20 (2010).

  4. 4.

    et al. Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Clim. Change 72, 251–298 (2005).

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

    et al. Two distinct influences of Arctic warming on cold winters over North America and East Asia. Nat. Geosci. 8, 759–762 (2015).

  7. 7.

    & Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L06801 (2012).

  8. 8.

    et al. Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather. Nat. Geosci. 7, 627–637 (2014).

  9. 9.

    & Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 704–709 (2014).

  10. 10.

    , , , & Global warming and winter weather. Science 343, 729–730 (2014).

  11. 11.

    et al. Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss. Nat. Commun. 5, 4646 (2014).

  12. 12.

    , & Influence of low Arctic sea-ice minima on anomalously cold Eurasian winters. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08707 (2009).

  13. 13.

    , & Interannual variability of the US summer precipitation regime with emphasis on the southwestern monsoon. J. Clim. 11, 2582–2606 (1998).

  14. 14.

    , , & Shifts in global vegetation activity trends. Remote Sens. 5, 1117–1133 (2013).

  15. 15.

    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).

  16. 16.

    et al. Spring temperature change and its implication in the change of vegetation growth in North America from 1982 to 2006. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1240–1245 (2011).

  17. 17.

    , , & Uncertainties in terrestrial carbon budgets related to spring phenology. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G01030 (2012).

  18. 18.

    , , & Response of vegetation growth and productivity to spring climate indicators in the conterminous United States derived from satellite remote sensing data fusion. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 194, 132–143 (2014).

  19. 19.

    et al. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300, 1560–1563 (2003).

  20. 20.

    et al. Ecological impacts of a widespread frost event following early spring leaf-out. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2365–2377 (2012).

  21. 21.

    et al. Drought during canopy development has lasting effect on annual carbon balance in a deciduous temperate forest. New Phytol. 179, 818–828 (2008).

  22. 22.

    & Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999).

  23. 23.

    & Adaptation of US maize to temperature variations. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 68–72 (2013).

  24. 24.

    , & Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6931–6936 (2015).

  25. 25.

    , & Forecasting Zimbabwean maize yield using eastern equatorial Pacific sea-surface temperature. Nature 370, 204–205 (1994).

  26. 26.

    , , & Increased atmospheric CO2 growth rate during El Niño driven by reduced terrestrial productivity in the CMIP5 ESMs. J. Clim. 29, 8783–8805 (2016).

  27. 27.

    et al. Why large-scale climate indices seem to predict ecological processes better than local weather. Nature 430, 71–75 (2004).

  28. 28.

    et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437, 529–533 (2005).

  29. 29.

    et al. European land CO2 sink influenced by NAO and East-Atlantic Pattern coupling. Nat. Commun. 7, 10315 (2016).

  30. 30.

    et al. North America’s net terrestrial CO2 exchange with the atmosphere 1990–2009. Biogeosciences 12, 399–414 (2015).

  31. 31.

    et al. The 2007 eastern US spring freezes: increased cold damage in a warming world? Bioscience 58, 253–262 (2008).

  32. 32.

    & Spring frost risk in a changing climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L12703 (2008).

  33. 33.

    Spring 2007 warmth and frost: phenology, damage and refoliation in a temperate deciduous forest. Funct. Ecol. 23, 1031–1039 (2009).

  34. 34.

    Reconstructing patterns of temperature, phenology, and frost damage over 124 years: spring damage risk is increasing. Ecology 94, 41–50 (2013).

  35. 35.

    & Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).

  36. 36.

    et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 553–597 (2011).

  37. 37.

    , , & Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).

  38. 38.

    et al. An extended AVHRR 8-km NDVI dataset compatible with MODIS and SPOT vegetation NDVI data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 4485–4498 (2005).

  39. 39.

    et al. The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project—Part 1: overview and experimental design. Geosci. Model. Dev. 6, 2121–2133 (2013).

  40. 40.

    et al. The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project—Part 2: environmental driver data. Geosci. Model. Dev. 6, 5375–5422 (2013).

  41. 41.

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

  42. 42.

    NASS quick stats, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2008).

  43. 43.

    , & An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 4) for producing and making available their model output. Funding for the Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP; https://nacp.ornl.gov) activity was provided through NASA ROSES Grant no. NNX10AG01A. Data management support for preparing, documenting and distributing model driver and output data was performed by the Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL; http://nacp.ornl.gov), with funding through NASA ROSES Grant no. NNH10AN681. Finalized MsTMIP data products are archived at the ORNL DAAC (http://daac.ornl.gov). Funding for AmeriFlux data resources was provided by the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The authors thank N. Mueller for his careful comments on the crop data analysis. J.-S.Kug and J.-S.Kim were supported by the Korean Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program under Grant KMIPA2015-2092 and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B3011511). S.-J.J. was supported by the startup of South University of Science and Technology of China.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang 37673, South Korea

    • Jin-Soo Kim
    •  & Jong-Seong Kug
  2. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, South University of Science and Technology of China (SUSTECH), Shenzhen 518055, China

    • Su-Jong Jeong
  3. School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

    • Deborah N. Huntzinger
  4. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California 94305, USA

    • Anna M. Michalak
  5. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540, USA

    • Christopher R. Schwalm
  6. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

    • Christopher R. Schwalm
  7. Environmental Sciences Division and Climate Change Science Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA

    • Yaxing Wei
  8. National Snow and Ice Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

    • Kevin Schaefer

Authors

  1. Search for Jin-Soo Kim in:

  2. Search for Jong-Seong Kug in:

  3. Search for Su-Jong Jeong in:

  4. Search for Deborah N. Huntzinger in:

  5. Search for Anna M. Michalak in:

  6. Search for Christopher R. Schwalm in:

  7. Search for Yaxing Wei in:

  8. Search for Kevin Schaefer in:

Contributions

J.-S.Kim compiled the data, conducted analyses, prepared figures, and wrote the manuscript. J.-S.Kug and S.-J.J. designed the research and wrote the majority of the manuscript content. All of the authors discussed the study results and reviewed the manuscript. D.N.H., A.M.M., C.R.S., Y.W. and K.S. provide the MsTMIP data.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jong-Seong Kug or Su-Jong Jeong.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information