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.

Amazon forest response to CO2 fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition

Abstract

Global terrestrial models currently predict that the Amazon rainforest will continue to act as a carbon sink in the future, primarily owing to the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Soil phosphorus impoverishment in parts of the Amazon basin largely controls its functioning, but the role of phosphorus availability has not been considered in global model ensembles—for example, during the Fifth Climate Model Intercomparison Project. Here we simulate the planned free-air CO2 enrichment experiment AmazonFACE with an ensemble of 14 terrestrial ecosystem models. We show that phosphorus availability reduces the projected CO2-induced biomass carbon growth by about 50% to 79 ± 63 g C m−2 yr−1 over 15 years compared to estimates from carbon and carbon–nitrogen models. Our results suggest that the resilience of the region to climate change may be much less than previously assumed. Variation in the biomass carbon response among the phosphorus-enabled models is considerable, ranging from 5 to 140 g C m−2 yr−1, owing to the contrasting plant phosphorus use and acquisition strategies considered among the models. The Amazon forest response thus depends on the interactions and relative contributions of the phosphorus acquisition and use strategies across individuals, and to what extent these processes can be upregulated under elevated CO2.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The predicted effect of eCO2 on biomass C, productivity and biomass compartments for C, CN and CNP models.
Fig. 2: Strength of P feedbacks in controlling the biomass C response to eCO2 for the six CNP models.
Fig. 3: Key responses of biomass C gain, stoichiometry, allocation and P dynamics to eCO2 for the CNP models.

Data availability

Model output data used for the analyses and figures are archived in a GitHub repository (https://github.com/Kaaze7/AmzFACE-model-ensemble-2019).

Code availability

Code used for the analyses and figures are archived in a GitHub repository (https://github.com/Kaaze7/AmzFACE-model-ensemble-2019).

References

  1. 1.

    Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Phillips, O. L. & Brienen, R. J. W. Carbon uptake by mature Amazon forests has mitigated Amazon nations’ carbon emissions. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 1 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cernusak, L. A. et al. Tropical forest responses to increasing atmospheric CO2: current knowledge and opportunities for future research. Funct. Plant Biol. 40, 531–551 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

    Cox, P. M. et al. Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability. Nature 494, 341–344 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Huntingford, C. et al. Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to CO2-induced climate change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 268–273 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Talhelm, A. F. et al. Elevated carbon dioxide and ozone alter productivity and ecosystem carbon content in northern temperate forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 2492–2504 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Zaehle, S. et al. Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate Free-Air CO2 Enrichment studies. New Phytol. 202, 803–822 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hofhansl, F. et al. Amazon forest ecosystem responses to elevated atmospheric CO2 and alterations in nutrient availability: filling the gaps with model-experiment integration. Front. Earth Sci. 4, 19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Norby, R. J. et al. Model-data synthesis for the next generation of forest Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments. New Phytol. 209, 17–28 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lloyd, J., Bird, M. I., Veenendaal, E. M. & Kruijt, B. in Global Biogeochemical Cycles in the Climate System 95 (eds Schulze, E.-D. et al.) 95–114 (Academic, 2001).

  13. 13.

    Vitousek, P. M. Litterfall, nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. Ecology 65, 285–298 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Quesada, C. A. et al. Basin-wide variations in Amazon forest structure and function are mediated by both soils and climate. Biogeosciences 9, 2203–2246 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lambers, H., Raven, J. A., Shaver, G. R. & Smith, S. E. Plant nutrient-acquisition strategies change with soil age. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 95–103 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Reed, S. C., Yang, X. & Thornton, P. E. Incorporating phosphorus cycling into global modeling efforts: a worthwhile, tractable endeavor. New Phytol. 208, 324–329 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jiang, M., Caldararu, S., Zaehle, S., Ellsworth, D. S. & Medlyn, B. E. Towards a more physiological representation of vegetation phosphorus processes in land surface models. New Phytol. 222, 1223–1229 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Turner, B. L., Brenes-Arguedas, T. & Condit, R. Pervasive phosphorus limitation of tree species but not communities in tropical forests. Nature 555, 367–370 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Goll, D. S. et al. A representation of the phosphorus cycle for ORCHIDEE (revision 4520). Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 3745–3770 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wang, Y.-P., Law, R. M. & Pak, B. A global model of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles for the terrestrial biosphere. Biogeosciences 7, 2261–2282 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Haverd, V. et al. A new version of the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2995–3026 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Comins, H. N. & McMurtrie, R. E. Long-term response of nutrient-limited forests to CO2 enrichment; equilibrium behavior of plant–soil models. Ecol. Appl. 3, 666–681 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zhu, Q., Riley, W. J., Tang, J. & Koven, C. D. Multiple soil nutrient competition between plants, microbes, and mineral surfaces: model development, parameterization, and example applications in several tropical forests. Biogeosciences 13, 341–363 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Yang, X., Thornton, P. E., Ricciuto, D. M. & Post, W. M. The role of phosphorus dynamics in tropical forests—a modeling study using CLM-CNP. Biogeosciences 11, 1667–1681 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Malhi, Y. et al. Comprehensive assessment of carbon productivity, allocation and storage in three Amazonian forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 1255–1274 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Araújo, A. C. et al. Comparative measurements of carbon dioxide fluxes from two nearby towers in a central Amazonian rainforest: the Manaus LBA site. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 8090 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Quesada, C. A. et al. Soils of Amazonia with particular reference to the RAINFOR sites. Biogeosciences 8, 1415–1440 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Friend, A. D. et al. Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3280–3285 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Walker, A. P. et al. Predicting long-term carbon sequestration in response to CO2 enrichment: how and why do current ecosystem models differ? Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 476–495 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Vitousek, P. M. Nutrient Cycling and Limitation: Hawai’i as a Model System (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004).

  31. 31.

    Nardoto, G. B. et al. Basin-wide variations in Amazon forest nitrogen-cycling characteristics as inferred from plant and soil 15N:14N measurements. Plant Ecol. Divers. 7, 173–187 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Fyllas, N. M. et al. Basin-wide variations in foliar properties of Amazonian forest: phylogeny, soils and climate. Biogeosciences 6, 2677–2708 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K. & Todd-Brown, K. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat. Geosci. 8, 441–444 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Medlyn, B. E. et al. Using models to guide field experiments: a priori predictions for the CO2 response of a nutrient- and water-limited native eucalypt woodland. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2834–2851 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ellsworth, D. S. et al. Elevated CO2 does not increase eucalypt forest productivity on a low-phosphorus soil. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 279–282 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wright, S. J. et al. Plant responses to fertilization experiments in lowland, species-rich, tropical forests. Ecology 99, 1129–1138 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Warren, J. M. et al. Root structural and functional dynamics in terrestrial biosphere models—evaluation and recommendations. New Phytol. 205, 59–78 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Hoosbeek, M. R. Elevated CO2 increased phosphorous loss from decomposing litter and soil organic matter at two FACE experiments with trees. Biogeochemistry 127, 89–97 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Yang, X., Thornton, P. E., Ricciuto, D. M. & Hoffman, F. M. Phosphorus feedbacks constraining tropical ecosystem responses to changes in atmospheric CO2 and climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7205–7214 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Vicca, S. et al. Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently. Ecol. Lett. 15, 520–526 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wang, Y. & Lambers, H. Root-released organic anions in response to low phosphorus availability: recent progress, challenges and future perspectives. Plant Soil https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-03972-8 (2019).

  42. 42.

    Gatti, L. V. et al. Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance revealed by atmospheric measurements. Nature 506, 76–80 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Powell, T. L. et al. Confronting model predictions of carbon fluxes with measurements of Amazon forests subjected to experimental drought. New Phytol. 200, 350–365 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    He, M. & Dijkstra, F. A. Drought effect on plant nitrogen and phosphorus: a meta-analysis. New Phytol. 204, 924–931 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Quesada, C. A. et al. Variations in chemical and physical properties of Amazon forest soils in relation to their genesis. Biogeosciences 7, 1515–1541 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Chambers, J. Q. et al. Respiration from a tropical forest ecosystem: partitioning of sources and low carbon use efficiency. Ecol. Appl. 14, 72–88 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. Above- and below-ground net primary productivity across ten Amazonian forests on contrasting soils. Biogeosciences 6, 2759–2778 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Holm, J. A., Chambers, J. Q., Collins, W. D. & Higuchi, N. Forest response to increased disturbance in the central Amazon and comparison to western Amazonian forests. Biogeosciences 11, 5773–5794 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Hadlich, H. L. et al. Recognizing Amazonian tree species in the field using bark tissues spectra. Ecol. Manag. 427, 296–304 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kucharik, C. J. et al. Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 795–825 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Fisher, R. A. et al. Taking off the training wheels: the properties of a dynamic vegetation model without climate envelopes, CLM4.5(ED). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 3593–3619 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Medvigy, D., Wofsy, S. C., Munger, J. W., Hollinger, D. Y. & Moorcroft, P. R. Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: Ecosystem Demography model version 2. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 114, G01002 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Smith, B. et al. Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences 11, 2027–2054 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Zaehle, S. & Friend, A. D. Carbon and nitrogen cycle dynamics in the O–CN land surface model: 1. Model description, site-scale evaluation, and sensitivity to parameter estimates. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24, GB1005 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Best, M. J. et al. The joint UK land environment simulator (JULES), model description—Part 1: Energy and water fluxes. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 677–699 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Collatz, G. J., Ball, J. T., Grivet, C. & Berry, J. A. Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration—a model that includes a laminar boundary-layer. Agric. Meteorol. 54, 107–136 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Kull, O. & Kruijt, B. Leaf photosynthetic light response: a mechanistic model for scaling photosynthesis to leaves and canopies. Funct. Ecol. 12, 767–777 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Etheridge, D. M. et al. Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 101, 4115–4128 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    MacFarling Meure, C. et al. Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14810 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Lamarque, J. F. et al. Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 7017–7039 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Lamarque, J. F. et al. Global and regional evolution of short-lived radiatively-active gases and aerosols in the Representative Concentration Pathways. Clim. Change 109, 191–212 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Wang, R. et al. Global forest carbon uptake due to nitrogen and phosphorus deposition from 1850 to 2100. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 4854–4872 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Tomasella, J. & Hodnett, M. Pedotransfer functions for tropical soils. Dev. Soil Sci. 30, 415–429 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Marthews, T. R. et al. High-resolution hydraulic parameter maps for surface soils in tropical South America. Geosci. Model Dev. 7, 711–723 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Where does the carbon go? A model–data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest Free-Air CO2 Enrichment sites. New Phytol. 203, 883–899 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Walker, A. P. et al. Comprehensive ecosystem model–data synthesis using multiple data sets at two temperate forest Free‐Air CO2 Enrichment experiments: model performance at ambient CO2 concentration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 937–964 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Medlyn, B. E. et al. Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 528–534 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The AmazonFACE research program provided logistical support to conduct this study (https://amazonface.inpa.gov.br/). This study was funded by the Inter-American Development Bank through a technical cooperation agreement with the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications (Grant BR-T1284), by Brazil’s Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) Grant 23038.007722/2014-77, by the Amazonas Research Foundation (FAPEAM) Grant 2649/2014 and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Grant 2015/02537-7. We thank the many scientists, field and laboratory technicians, students and other personnel involved in the development of the models, in collecting and analysing the field data and in the planning and execution of the AmazonFACE program. We thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for financing one of the workshops that made this study possible (grant no. RA 2060/4-1). T.F.D., S.G., A.G. and C.A.Q. thank the USAID for funding via the PEER program (grant agreement AID-OAA-A-11-00012). A.P.W. and R.J.N. were supported by the FACE Model–Data Synthesis project, X.Y. and Q.Z. were supported by the Energy Exascale Earth System (E3SM) program and J.A.H. was supported by the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiments—Tropics project; all were funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research under contract numbers DE-AC02-05CH11231 and DE-AC05-00OR22725. M.G.dK. acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023) and the New South Wales Research Attraction and Acceleration Program. Y.P.W., B.P. and V.H. acknowledge support from the National Earth System Science Program of the Australian Government. D.S.G. is funded by the ‘IMBALANCE-P’ project of the European Research Council (ERC-2013-SyG-610028). L.M.M. acknowledges funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) grant nos NE/LE007223/1 and NE/N017951/1. F.L. acknowledges funding from EU FP7 LUC4C program (GA603542). K.F. is funded by the DFG (grant no. RA 2060/5-1).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.M.L., A.R. and K.F. conceived the study. L.F., S.G., A.G., F.H., R.J.N., C.A.Q., K.J.S. and O.J.V.-B. collected field data. K.F., D.S.G., M.G.dK., M.J., V.H., J.A.H., F.L., L.M.M., B.P., C.vR., Y.-P.W., X.Y., S.Z. and Q.Z. performed model simulations. K.F. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all the co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Fleischer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–9, and Supplementary Tables 1–4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fleischer, K., Rammig, A., De Kauwe, M.G. et al. Amazon forest response to CO2 fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition. Nat. Geosci. 12, 736–741 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0404-9

Download citation

Further reading

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