Historically inconsistent productivity and respiration fluxes in the global terrestrial carbon cycle

Jinshi Jian (), Vanessa Bailey, Kalyn Dorheim, Alexandra G. Konings, Dalei Hao, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Abigail Snyder, Meredith Steele, Munemasa Teramoto, Rodrigo Vargas and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Additional contact information
Jinshi Jian: Northwest A&F University
Vanessa Bailey: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Kalyn Dorheim: Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland–College Park
Alexandra G. Konings: Stanford University
Dalei Hao: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Alexey N. Shiklomanov: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Abigail Snyder: Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland–College Park
Meredith Steele: School of Plant and Environmental Sciences
Munemasa Teramoto: National Institute for Environmental Studies
Rodrigo Vargas: University of Delaware
Ben Bond-Lamberty: Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland–College Park

Nature Communications, 2022, vol. 13, issue 1, 1-9

Abstract: Abstract The terrestrial carbon cycle is a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. Its dominant fluxes, gross primary productivity (GPP), and respiration (in particular soil respiration, RS), are typically estimated from independent satellite-driven models and upscaled in situ measurements, respectively. We combine carbon-cycle flux estimates and partitioning coefficients to show that historical estimates of global GPP and RS are irreconcilable. When we estimate GPP based on RS measurements and some assumptions about RS:GPP ratios, we found the resulted global GPP values (bootstrap mean $${149}_{-23}^{+29}$$ 149 − 23 + 29 Pg C yr−1) are significantly higher than most GPP estimates reported in the literature ( $${113}_{-18}^{+18}$$ 113 − 18 + 18 Pg C yr−1). Similarly, historical GPP estimates imply a soil respiration flux (RsGPP, bootstrap mean of $${68}_{-8}^{+10}$$ 68 − 8 + 10 Pg C yr−1) statistically inconsistent with most published RS values ( $${87}_{-8}^{+9}$$ 87 − 8 + 9 Pg C yr−1), although recent, higher, GPP estimates are narrowing this gap. Furthermore, global RS:GPP ratios are inconsistent with spatial averages of this ratio calculated from individual sites as well as CMIP6 model results. This discrepancy has implications for our understanding of carbon turnover times and the terrestrial sensitivity to climate change. Future efforts should reconcile the discrepancies associated with calculations for GPP and Rs to improve estimates of the global carbon budget.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29391-5 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-29391-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-29391-5

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().