Letter | Published:

Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants


Gross primary production (GPP)—the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by leaves, and its conversion to sugars by photosynthesis—is the basis for life on land. Earth System Models (ESMs) incorporating the interactions of land ecosystems and climate are used to predict the future of the terrestrial sink for anthropogenic CO2 1. ESMs require accurate representation of GPP. However, current ESMs disagree on how GPP responds to environmental variations1,2, suggesting a need for a more robust theoretical framework for modelling3,4. Here, we focus on a key quantity for GPP, the ratio of leaf internal to external CO2 (χ). χ is tightly regulated and depends on environmental conditions, but is represented empirically and incompletely in today’s models. We show that a simple evolutionary optimality hypothesis5,6 predicts specific quantitative dependencies of χ on temperature, vapour pressure deficit and elevation; and that these same dependencies emerge from an independent analysis of empirical χ values, derived from a worldwide dataset of >3,500 leaf stable carbon isotope measurements. A single global equation embodying these relationships then unifies the empirical light-use efficiency model7 with the standard model of C3 photosynthesis8, and successfully predicts GPP measured at eddy-covariance flux sites. This success is notable given the equation’s simplicity and broad applicability across biomes and plant functional types. It provides a theoretical underpinning for the analysis of plant functional coordination across species and emergent properties of ecosystems, and a potential basis for the reformulation of the controls of GPP in next-generation ESMs.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Ciais, P. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 6, 465–570 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, New York, 2014).

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

    Prentice, I. C., Liang, X., Medlyn, B. E. & Wang, Y. P. Reliable, robust and realistic: the three R’s of next-generation land-surface modelling. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 5987–6005 (2015).

  4. 4.

    Wang, H., Prentice, I. C. & Davis, T. W. Biophsyical constraints on gross primary production by the terrestrial biosphere. Biogeosciences 11, 5987–6001 (2014).

  5. 5.

    Prentice, I. C., Dong, N., Gleason, S. M., Maire, V. & Wright, I. J. Balancing the costs of carbon gain and water transport: testing a new theoretical framework for plant functional ecology. Ecol. Lett. 17, 82–91 (2014).

  6. 6.

    Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B. & Westoby, M. Least-cost input mixtures of water and nitrogen for photosynthesis. Am. Nat. 161, 98–111 (2003).

  7. 7.

    Monteith, J. L. Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 9, 747–766 (1972).

  8. 8.

    Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S. & Berry, J. A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).

  9. 9.

    Medlyn, B. E. Physiological basis of the light use efficiency model. Tree Physiol. 18, 167–176 (1998).

  10. 10.

    Ali, A. et al. A global scale mechanistic model of the photosynthetic capacity (LUNA V1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 587–606 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Cai, W. et al. Large differences in terrestrial vegetation production derived from satellite-based light use efficiency models. Rem. Sens. 6, 8945–8965 (2014).

  12. 12.

    De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Forest water use and water use efficiency at elevated CO2: a model-data intercomparison at two contrasting temperate forest FACE sites. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1759–1779 (2013).

  13. 13.

    Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Diefendorf, A. F., Mueller, K. E., Wing, S. L., Koch, P. L. & Freeman, K. H. Global patterns in leaf 13C discrimination and implications for studies of past and future climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5738–5743 (2010).

  15. 15.

    Cowan, I. & Farquhar, G. Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. Sym. Soc. Exp. Biol. 31, 471–505 (1977).

  16. 16.

    Givnish, T. J. On the Economy of Plant Form and Function Vol. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1986).

  17. 17.

    Cornwell, W. K. et al. A Global Dataset of Leaf ∆ 13 C Values (Zenodo, accessed 27 April 2017); http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.569501

  18. 18.

    Farquhar, G. D., Ehleringer, J. R. & Hubick, K. T. Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 40, 503–537 (1989).

  19. 19.

    Körner, C., Farquhar, G. & Wong, S. Carbon isotope discrimination by plants follows latitudinal and altitudinal trends. Oecologia 88, 30–40 (1991).

  20. 20.

    Lin, Y.-S. et al. Optimal stomatal behaviour around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 459–464 (2015).

  21. 21.

    Maire, V. et al. The coordination of leaf photosynthesis links C and N fluxes in C3 plant species. PLoS ONE 7, e38345 (2012).

  22. 22.

    Haxeltine, A. & Prentice, I. C. A general model for the light-use efficiency of primary production. Funct. Ecol. 10, 551–561 (1996).

  23. 23.

    Kattge, J. & Knorr, W. Temperature acclimation in a biochemical model of photosynthesis: a reanalysis of data from 36 species. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 1176–1190 (2007).

  24. 24.

    Collatz, G., Berry, J., Farquhar, G. & Pierce, J. The relationship between the Rubisco reaction mechanism and models of photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 13, 219–225 (1990).

  25. 25.

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

  26. 26.

    Yuan, W. et al. Global comparison of light use efficiency models for simulating terrestrial vegetation gross primary production based on the LaThuile database. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 192, 108–120 (2014).

  27. 27.

    Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. 165, 351–372 (2005).

  28. 28.

    Frank, D. C. et al. Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 579–583 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Maire, V. et al. Global effects of soil and climate on leaf photosynthetic traits and rates. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 706–717 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Chen, J.-L., Reynolds, J. F., Harley, P. C. & Tenhunen, J. D. Coordination theory of leaf nitrogen distribution in a canopy. Oecologia 93, 63–69 (1993).

  31. 31.

    Vogel, H. Temperaturabhängigkeitsgesetz der Viskosität von Flüssigkeiten. Physik Z 22, 645–646 (1921).

  32. 32.

    Jacob, D. Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1999).

  33. 33.

    Bernacchi, C. J., Singsaas, E. L., Pimentel, C., Portis, A. R. Jr & Long, S. P. Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 24, 253–259 (2001).

  34. 34.

    New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M. & Makin, I. A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Clim. Res. 21, 1–25 (2002).

  35. 35.

    Keenan, T. F., Sabate, S. & Gracia, C. Soil water stress and coupled photosynthesis–conductance models: bridging the gap between conflicting reports on the relative roles of stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 150, 443–453 (2010).

  36. 36.

    Sun, Y. et al. Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15774–15779 (2014).

  37. 37.

    Flexas, J., Ribas-Carbó, M., Diaz-Espejo, A., Galmés, J. & Medrano, H. Mesophyll conductance to CO2: current knowledge and future prospects. Plant Cell Environ. 31, 602–621 (2008).

  38. 38.

    Gu, J., Yin, X., Stomph, T.-J., Wang, H. & Struik, P. C. Physiological basis of genetic variation in leaf photosynthesis among rice (Oryza sativa L.) introgression lines under drought and well-watered conditions. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 5137–5153 (2012).

  39. 39.

    Douthe, C., Dreyer, E., Epron, D. & Warren, C. Mesophyll conductance to CO2, assessed from online TDL-AS records of 13CO2 discrimination, displays small but significant short-term responses to CO2 and irradiance in Eucalyptus seedlings. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 5335–5346 (2011).

  40. 40.

    Barbour, M., Warren, C., Farquhar, G., Forrester, G. & Brown, H. Variability in mesophyll conductance between barley genotypes, and effects on transpiration efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination. Plant Cell Environ. 33, 1176–1185 (2010).

  41. 41.

    Ubierna, N. & Farquhar, G. D. Advances in measurements and models of photosynthetic carbon isotope discrimination in C3 plants. Plant Cell Environ. 37, 1494–1498 (2014).

  42. 42.

    Warren, C. R. Stand aside stomata, another actor deserves centre stage: the forgotten role of the internal conductance to CO2 transfer. J. Exp. Bot. 59, 1475–1487 (2008).

  43. 43.

    Smith, E. L. The influence of light and carbon dioxide on photosynthesis. J. Gen. Physiol. 20, 807–830 (1937).

  44. 44.

    Harley, P. C., Thomas, R. B., Reynolds, J. F. & Strain, B. R. Modelling photosynthesis of cotton grown in elevated CO2. Plant Cell Environ. 15, 271–282 (1992).

  45. 45.

    Lloyd, J. & Farquhar, G. D. 13C discrimination during CO2 assimilation by the terrestrial biosphere. Oecologia 99, 201–215 (1994).

  46. 46.

    New, M., Hulme, M. & Jones, P. Representing twentieth- century space-time climate variability. Part I: development of a 1961–90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. J. Climate 12, 829–856 (1999).

  47. 47.

    Weedon, G. P. et al. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7505–7514 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Xiao, X., Zhang, Q., Hollinger, D., Aber, J. & Moore, B. I. Modeling gross primary production of an evergreen needleleaf forest using MODIS and climate data. Ecol. Appl. 15, 954–969 (2005).

  49. 49.

    Kaplan, J. O. Geophysical Applications of Vegetation Modeling Thesis, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (2001).

Download references


We thank Y.-S. Lin, V. Maire, B. Medlyn, B. Stocker and IIASA colleagues for discussions, and R. Keeling for comments on successive drafts. The paper is a contribution to the AXA Chair Programme on Biosphere and Climate Impacts and Imperial College’s initiative on Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment. Research is supported by a National Basic Research Programme of China (2013CB956602) grant to C.P. and H.W., the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 31600388) to H.W., an Australian Research Council Discovery grant (‘Next-generation vegetation model based on functional traits’) to I.C.P. and I.J.W., an Australian National Data Service (ANDS) grant (‘Ecosystem production in space and time’) to I.C.P. and Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Council (TERN) grants (‘Ecosystem Modelling and Scaling Infrastructure’) to I.C.P. and B.J.E. TERN and ANDS are supported by the Australian Government National Collaborative Infrastructure Strategy. T.F.K. acknowledges financial support from the Laboratory Directed Research and Development fund under the auspices of DOE, BER Office of Science at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Macquarie University Research Fellowship. In addition to the authors of this paper, data were provided by M. Barbour, L. Cernusak, T. Dawson, D. Ellsworth, G. Farquhar, H. Griffiths, C. Keitel, A. Knohl, P. Reich, D. Williams, R. Bhaskar, H. Cornelissen, A. Richards, S. Schmidt, F. Valladares, C. Körner, E.-D. Schulze, N. Buchmann and L. Santiago. We used ‘free and fair use’ eddy-covariance data acquired by the FLUXNET community and, in particular, by the following networks: AmeriFlux (US Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Carbon Program), AsiaFlux, CarboEuropeIP, Fluxnet-Canada (supported by CFCAS, NSERC, BIOCAP, Environment Canada and NRCan), OzFlux and TCOS-Siberia. We acknowledge the financial support to the eddy-covariance data harmonization provided by CarboEuropeIP, FAO- GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Université Laval and Environment Canada and US Department of Energy, and the database development and technical support from Berkeley Water Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Microsoft Research eScience, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of California–Berkeley and University of Virginia.

Author information

H.W. and I.C.P. derived the predictions. H.W. carried out all the analyses and constructed the Figures and Tables. I.C.P. and T.F.K. contributed to the analysis and writing. T.W.D., B.J.E. and I.C.P. developed and tested the flux partitioning method. T.W.D. developed the global flux database and all the GPP computations. I.J.W. proposed least-cost hypothesis and contributed to the analysis. W.K.C. originated and compiled the Δ13C dataset. H.W. and I.C.P. wrote the first draft, and all authors contributed to the final draft.

Correspondence to Han Wang or Changhui Peng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

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

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Detailed description of the theoretical model.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading

Fig. 1: Partial residual plots from the regression of logit-tranformed values of χ derived from the global leaf stable carbon isotope dataset against environmental predictors.
Fig. 2: Site-mean values of χ.
Fig. 3: Monthly GPP at flux sites.