carbon – nitrogen – climate coupling
DESCRIPTION
Carbon – Nitrogen – Climate Coupling. Peter Thornton NCAR, CGD/TSS June 2006. The global carbon cycle: fluxes and storage. The global carbon cycle: fluxes and storage. The global C cycle: changes over time. The global C cycle: changes over time. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Carbon – Nitrogen – Climate Coupling
Peter ThorntonNCAR, CGD/TSS
June 2006
The global carbon cycle: fluxes and storage
The global carbon cycle: fluxes and storage
The global C cycle: changes over time
The global C cycle: changes over time
The global nitrogen cycle: fluxes and storage
The global N cycle: changes over time
Atm CO2
Plant
Litter / CWD
Soil Organic Matter
Carbon cycle
Soil Mineral N
N dep
N fix
nit/denit
N leaching
Nitrogen cycle
Respiration
Internal(fast)
External(slow)
Elements of design
• Establish design goals
• Persistence in the pursuit of quality
• Probe, test, explore…
• …build prototypes, and be prepared to abandon them
• Build to last, and archive your efforts
C-N coupling: hypotheses
• N-limitation reduces land ecosystem response to increasing CO2 concentration– Reduced base state– Stoichiometric constraints, internal N cycling– Progressive N-limitation due to biomass accumulation
• N-limitation damps carbon cycle sensitivity to temperature and precipitation variability– Reduced base state– Persistence due to internal N cycling
C-N coupling: hypotheses (cont.)
• Climate x CO2 response– Changes over time in land carbon cycle
sensitivity to variability in temperature and precipitation, forced by land carbon cycle response to increasing CO2.
Simulation protocol1. Spinup at pre-industrial CO2 and N deposition
• ~700 yrs, following Thornton and Rosenbloom (2005)
2. Drive CLM-CN with 25 years of hourly surface weather from coupled CAM / CLM-CN.
3. Transient experiments (1850-2100)• Increasing CO2
• Increasing N deposition
• Increasing CO2 and N deposition
4. Repeat experiments in C-only mode • supplemental N addition, following Thornton and
Zimmermann (in review)
offline CLM-CN(CAM drivers)
coupled(CAM – CLM-CN)
transient, control (transient-control)GPP(CO2+Ndep)
CLM-CCLM-CN (CO2,Nfix,dep)CLM-CN (CO2,Nfix)CLM-CN (CO2)
C4MIP models C4MIP mean
Land biosphere sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (L)
Results from offline CLM-CN, driven with CAM climate, in carbon-only (CLM-C) and carbon-nitrogen (CLM-CN) mode, from present to 2100. Using SRES A2 scenario assumed CO2 concentrations.
Spatial distribution of L
C-N C-N
C-only C-only
2000 2100
Tair Prcp
NEE
sen
sitiv
ity to
Tai
r (Pg
C /
K)
0
1
2
3
4
5
NEE
sen
sitiv
ity to
Prc
p (P
gC /
mm
d-1
)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
CLM-CCLM-CN
NEE sensitivity to Tair and Prcp (at steady-state)
Coupling C-N cycles buffers the interannual variability of NEE due to variation in temperature and precipitation (global means, control simulations).
NEE sensitivity to Tair and Prcp (at steady-state)
C-N C-N
C-only C-only
Tair Prcp
FIRE
HR
NPP
NEE
Components of NEE temperature response
NPP dominates NEE response to temperature in most regions. Exceptions include Pacific Northwest, Scandanavia.
Dissection of NPP temperature response
GPP
Soil ice
BtranNPP
Warmer temperatures lead to drying in warm soils (increased evaporative demand), and wetting in cold soils (less soil water held as ice).
FIRE
HR
NPP
NEE
Components of NEE precipitation response
NPP dominates NEE response to precipitation in tropics, midlatitudes, HR dominates in arctic and coldest climates.
Dissection of HR precipitation response
Snow depthNEE
HR
Tsoil
Higher Precip in arctic/cold climate produces deeper snowpack, warmer soils, increased HR.
Tair Prcp
% c
hang
e fr
om c
ontr
ol
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
CLM-C: +CO2
CLM-CN: +CO2
CLM-CN: +CO2 +Nmin
NEE sensitivity to Tair and Prcp: effects of rising CO2 andanthropogenic N deposition
Carbon-only model has increased sensitivity to Tair and Prcp under rising CO2. CLM-CN has decreased sensitivity to both Tair and Prcp, due to increasing N-limitation.
Conclusions (1)
• C-N coupling significantly reduces L
– not primarily the result of altered base state– strongest in the tropics and above 40N
Conclusions (2)
• C-N coupling significantly reduces NEE sensitivity to interannual variation in Tair and Prcp at steady-state– Tair effect is not primarily due to altered base state– Prcp effect consistent with alteration to base state– Tair: NPP dominates, with warming leading to drying in
warm soils, wetting in cold soils.– Prcp: NPP dominates in tropics/temperate, but HR
dominates in cold climates, with wetting leading to deeper snow, warmer soil, increased HR.
– Tair and Prcp responses likely in tension for warmer-wetter future climate.
Conclusions (3)
• Increasing CO2 amplifies the sensitivity of land carbon cycle to Tair and Prcp in C-only model, but damps these sensitivities in C-N model– This difference is not primarily due to a difference in
base state.– Tair response is consistent with increasing N
limitation under increasing CO2
The role of disturbance in C-N-climate coupling
Wildfire
The role of disturbance in C-N-climate coupling
Wind damage
The role of disturbance in C-N-climate coupling
Insects
The role of disturbance in C-N-climate coupling
Forest harvest
Simulated disturbance effects: Duke Forest, NC
Harvest loss: 11278 gC m-2
Thornton, in prep.