Literature DB >> 23504858

Forest water use and water use efficiency at elevated CO2 : a model-data intercomparison at two contrasting temperate forest FACE sites.

Martin G De Kauwe1, Belinda E Medlyn, Sönke Zaehle, Anthony P Walker, Michael C Dietze, Thomas Hickler, Atul K Jain, Yiqi Luo, William J Parton, I Colin Prentice, Benjamin Smith, Peter E Thornton, Shusen Wang, Ying-Ping Wang, David Wårlind, Ensheng Weng, Kristine Y Crous, David S Ellsworth, Paul J Hanson, Hyun- Seok Kim, Jeffrey M Warren, Ram Oren, Richard J Norby.   

Abstract

Predicted responses of transpiration to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (eCO2 ) are highly variable amongst process-based models. To better understand and constrain this variability amongst models, we conducted an intercomparison of 11 ecosystem models applied to data from two forest free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments at Duke University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We analysed model structures to identify the key underlying assumptions causing differences in model predictions of transpiration and canopy water use efficiency. We then compared the models against data to identify model assumptions that are incorrect or are large sources of uncertainty. We found that model-to-model and model-to-observations differences resulted from four key sets of assumptions, namely (i) the nature of the stomatal response to elevated CO2 (coupling between photosynthesis and stomata was supported by the data); (ii) the roles of the leaf and atmospheric boundary layer (models which assumed multiple conductance terms in series predicted more decoupled fluxes than observed at the broadleaf site); (iii) the treatment of canopy interception (large intermodel variability, 2-15%); and (iv) the impact of soil moisture stress (process uncertainty in how models limit carbon and water fluxes during moisture stress). Overall, model predictions of the CO2 effect on WUE were reasonable (intermodel μ = approximately 28% ± 10%) compared to the observations (μ = approximately 30% ± 13%) at the well-coupled coniferous site (Duke), but poor (intermodel μ = approximately 24% ± 6%; observations μ = approximately 38% ± 7%) at the broadleaf site (Oak Ridge). The study yields a framework for analysing and interpreting model predictions of transpiration responses to eCO2 , and highlights key improvements to these types of models.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23504858     DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12164

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Glob Chang Biol        ISSN: 1354-1013            Impact factor:   10.863


  27 in total

1.  Hydrological droughts in the 21st century, hotspots and uncertainties from a global multimodel ensemble experiment.

Authors:  Christel Prudhomme; Ignazio Giuntoli; Emma L Robinson; Douglas B Clark; Nigel W Arnell; Rutger Dankers; Balázs M Fekete; Wietse Franssen; Dieter Gerten; Simon N Gosling; Stefan Hagemann; David M Hannah; Hyungjun Kim; Yoshimitsu Masaki; Yusuke Satoh; Tobias Stacke; Yoshihide Wada; Dominik Wisser
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Biogeochemistry: carbon dioxide and water use in forests.

Authors:  Belinda Medlyn; Martin De Kauwe
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Response of ecosystem water use efficiency to climate change in the Tianshan Mountains, Central Asia.

Authors:  Xingming Hao; Haiyan Ma; Ding Hua; Jingxiu Qin; Ying Zhang
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Stomatal Function across Temporal and Spatial Scales: Deep-Time Trends, Land-Atmosphere Coupling and Global Models.

Authors:  Peter J Franks; Joseph A Berry; Danica L Lombardozzi; Gordon B Bonan
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 8.340

5.  The paleoclimate context and future trajectory of extreme summer hydroclimate in eastern Australia.

Authors:  Benjamin I Cook; Jonathan G Palmer; Edward R Cook; Chris S M Turney; Kathryn Allen; Pavla Fenwick; Alison O'Donnell; Janice M Lough; Pauline F Grierson; Michelle Ho; Patrick J Baker
Journal:  J Geophys Res Atmos       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 4.261

Review 6.  Gaps in knowledge and data driving uncertainty in models of photosynthesis.

Authors:  Michael C Dietze
Journal:  Photosynth Res       Date:  2013-05-05       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity.

Authors:  Abigail L S Swann; Forrest M Hoffman; Charles D Koven; James T Randerson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  CO2 studies remain key to understanding a future world.

Authors:  Katie M Becklin; S Michael Walker; Danielle A Way; Joy K Ward
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 10.151

9.  Simulating the effects of water limitation on plant biomass using a 3D functional-structural plant model of shoot and root driven by soil hydraulics.

Authors:  Renato K Braghiere; Frédéric Gérard; Jochem B Evers; Christophe Pradal; Loïc Pagès
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 4.357

10.  CO2 enrichment affects eco-physiological growth of maize and alfalfa under different water stress regimes in the UAE.

Authors:  Taoufik Saleh Ksiksi; Shaijal Babu Thru Ppoyil; Abdul Rasheed Palakkott
Journal:  Physiol Mol Biol Plants       Date:  2018-02-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.