Simone Fatichi1, Christoforos Pappas2, Jakob Zscheischler3, Sebastian Leuzinger4. 1. Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Stefano Franscini Platz 5, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Département de géographie and Centre d'études nordiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, H2V 2B8, Canada. 3. Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Institute for Applied Ecology New Zealand, School of Science, Auckland University of Technology, Wakefield Street 46, 1142, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
Contents Summary 652 I. Introduction 652 II. Discrepancy in predicting the effects of rising [CO2 ] on the terrestrial C sink 655 III. Carbon and nutrient storage in plants and its modelling 656 IV. Modelling the source and the sink: a plant perspective 657 V. Plant-scale water and Carbon flux models 660 VI. Challenges for the future 662 Acknowledgements 663 Authors contributions 663 References 663 SUMMARY: The increase in atmospheric CO2 in the future is one of the most certain projections in environmental sciences. Understanding whether vegetation carbon assimilation, growth, and changes in vegetation carbon stocks are affected by higher atmospheric CO2 and translating this understanding in mechanistic vegetation models is of utmost importance. This is highlighted by inconsistencies between global-scale studies that attribute terrestrial carbon sinks to CO2 stimulation of gross and net primary production on the one hand, and forest inventories, tree-scale studies, and plant physiological evidence showing a much less pronounced CO2 fertilization effect on the other hand. Here, we review how plant carbon sources and sinks are currently described in terrestrial biosphere models. We highlight an uneven representation of complexity between the modelling of photosynthesis and other processes, such as plant respiration, direct carbon sinks, and carbon allocation, largely driven by available observations. Despite a general lack of data on carbon sink dynamics to drive model improvements, ways forward toward a mechanistic representation of plant carbon sinks are discussed, leveraging on results obtained from plant-scale models and on observations geared toward model developments.
Contents Summary 652 I. Introduction 652 II. Discrepancy in predicting the effects of rising [CO2 ] on the terrestrial C sink 655 III. Carbon and nutrient storage in plants and its modelling 656 IV. Modelling the source and the sink: a plant perspective 657 V. Plant-scale water and Carbon flux models 660 VI. Challenges for the future 662 Acknowledgements 663 Authors contributions 663 References 663 SUMMARY: The increase in atmospheric CO2 in the future is one of the most certain projections in environmental sciences. Understanding whether vegetation carbon assimilation, growth, and changes in vegetation carbonstocks are affected by higher atmospheric CO2 and translating this understanding in mechanistic vegetation models is of utmost importance. This is highlighted by inconsistencies between global-scale studies that attribute terrestrial carbon sinks to CO2 stimulation of gross and net primary production on the one hand, and forest inventories, tree-scale studies, and plant physiological evidence showing a much less pronounced CO2 fertilization effect on the other hand. Here, we review how plant carbon sources and sinks are currently described in terrestrial biosphere models. We highlight an uneven representation of complexity between the modelling of photosynthesis and other processes, such as plant respiration, direct carbon sinks, and carbon allocation, largely driven by available observations. Despite a general lack of data on carbon sink dynamics to drive model improvements, ways forward toward a mechanistic representation of plant carbon sinks are discussed, leveraging on results obtained from plant-scale models and on observations geared toward model developments.
Authors: Richard L Peters; Georg von Arx; Daniel Nievergelt; Andreas Ibrom; Jonas Stillhard; Volodymyr Trotsiuk; Aleksandra Mazurkiewicz; Flurin Babst Journal: Tree Physiol Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 4.196
Authors: Sophia Etzold; Frank Sterck; Arun K Bose; Sabine Braun; Nina Buchmann; Werner Eugster; Arthur Gessler; Ansgar Kahmen; Richard L Peters; Yann Vitasse; Lorenz Walthert; Kasia Ziemińska; Roman Zweifel Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Annemarie H Eckes-Shephard; Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist; David M Drew; Cyrille B K Rathgeber; Andrew D Friend Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Isabel Dorado-Liñán; Blanca Ayarzagüena; Flurin Babst; Guobao Xu; Luis Gil; Giovanna Battipaglia; Allan Buras; Vojtěch Čada; J Julio Camarero; Liam Cavin; Hugues Claessens; Igor Drobyshev; Balázs Garamszegi; Michael Grabner; Andrew Hacket-Pain; Claudia Hartl; Andrea Hevia; Pavel Janda; Alistair S Jump; Marko Kazimirovic; Srdjan Keren; Juergen Kreyling; Alexander Land; Nicolas Latte; Tom Levanič; Ernst van der Maaten; Marieke van der Maaten-Theunissen; Elisabet Martínez-Sancho; Annette Menzel; Martin Mikoláš; Renzo Motta; Lena Muffler; Paola Nola; Momchil Panayotov; Any Mary Petritan; Ion Catalin Petritan; Ionel Popa; Peter Prislan; Catalin-Constantin Roibu; Miloš Rydval; Raul Sánchez-Salguero; Tobias Scharnweber; Branko Stajić; Miroslav Svoboda; Willy Tegel; Marius Teodosiu; Elvin Toromani; Volodymyr Trotsiuk; Daniel-Ond Turcu; Robert Weigel; Martin Wilmking; Christian Zang; Tzvetan Zlatanov; Valerie Trouet Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 17.694