| Literature DB >> 31828914 |
Masayuki Kondo1, Prabir K Patra1,2, Stephen Sitch3, Pierre Friedlingstein4, Benjamin Poulter5, Frederic Chevallier6, Philippe Ciais6, Josep G Canadell7, Ana Bastos8, Ronny Lauerwald9, Leonardo Calle10, Kazuhito Ichii1,11, Peter Anthoni12, Almut Arneth12, Vanessa Haverd13, Atul K Jain14, Etsushi Kato15, Markus Kautz12,16, Rachel M Law17, Sebastian Lienert18, Danica Lombardozzi19, Takashi Maki20, Takashi Nakamura21, Philippe Peylin6, Christian Rödenbeck22, Ruslan Zhuravlev23, Tazu Saeki11, Hanqin Tian24, Dan Zhu6, Tilo Ziehn17.
Abstract
Robust estimates of CO2 budget, CO2 exchanged between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, are necessary to better understand the role of the terrestrial biosphere in mitigating anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Over the past decade, this field of research has advanced through understanding of the differences and similarities of two fundamentally different approaches: "top-down" atmospheric inversions and "bottom-up" biosphere models. Since the first studies were undertaken, these approaches have shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part because they do not estimate the same quantity of atmosphere-biosphere CO2 exchange. Here, we conducted a thorough comparison of CO2 budgets at multiple scales and from multiple methods to assess the current state of the science in estimating CO2 budgets. Our set of atmospheric inversions and biosphere models, which were adjusted for a consistent flux definition, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO2 budgets in the 2000s. Regionally, improved agreement in CO2 budgets was notable for North America and Southeast Asia. However, large gaps between the two methods remained in East Asia and South America. In other regions, Europe, boreal Asia, Africa, South Asia, and Oceania, it was difficult to determine whether those regions act as a net sink or source because of the large spread in estimates from atmospheric inversions. These results highlight two research directions to improve the robustness of CO2 budgets: (a) to increase representation of processes in biosphere models that could contribute to fill the budget gaps, such as forest regrowth and forest degradation; and (b) to reduce sink-source compensation between regions (dipoles) in atmospheric inversion so that their estimates become more comparable. Advancements on both research areas will increase the level of agreement between the top-down and bottom-up approaches and yield more robust knowledge of regional CO2 budgets.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 evasion; atmospheric inversion; biosphere model; carbon stock change; land-use change emissions; net CO2 flux; residual land uptake; riverine carbon export; terrestrial CO2 budget
Year: 2019 PMID: 31828914 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14917
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Chang Biol ISSN: 1354-1013 Impact factor: 10.863