Evaluation of CMIP5 Earth System Models for the Spatial Patterns of Biomass and Soil Carbon Turnover Times and Their Linkage with Climate

• Published in: Journal of Climate
• Main Authors: Wu, Donghai, Piao, Shilong, Liu, Yongwen, Ciais, Philippe, Yao, Yitong
• Other Authors: Sino-French Institute for Earth System Science, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University Beijing, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement Gif-sur-Yvette (LSCE), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), ICOS-ATC (ICOS-ATC), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2018
• Subjects: [SDU.STU.CL]Sciences of the Universe [physics]/Earth Sciences/Climatology; permafrost
• Online Access: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02900790; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02900790/document; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02900790/file/%5B15200442%20-%20Journal%20of%20Climate%5D%20Evaluation%20of%20CMIP5%20Earth%20System%20Models%20for%20the%20Spatial%20Patterns%20of%20Biomass%20and%20Soil%20Carbon%20Turnover%20Times%20and%20Their%20Linkage%20with%20Climate.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0380.1

International audience Earth system models (ESMs) from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) were diagnosed as having large discrepancies in their land carbon turnover times, which partly explains the differences in the future projections of terrestrial carbon storage from the models. Carvalhais et al. focused on evaluation of model-based ecosystem carbon turnover times τeco in relation with climate factors. In this study, τeco from models was analyzed separately for biomass and soil carbon pools, and its spatial dependency upon temperature and precipitation was evaluated using observational datasets. The results showed that 8 of 14 models slightly underestimated global biomass carbon turnover times τveg (modeled median of 8 yr vs observed 11 yr), and 11 models grossly underestimated the soil carbon turnover time τsoil (modeled median of 16 yr vs observed 26 yr). The underestimation of global carbon turnover times in ESMs was mainly due to values for τveg and τsoil being too low in the high northern latitudes and arid and semiarid regions. In addition, the models did not capture the observed spatial climate sensitivity of carbon turnover time in these regions. Modeled τveg and τsoil values were generally weakly correlated with climate variables, implying that differences between carbon cycle models primarily originated from structural differences rather than from differences in atmospheric climate models (i.e., related to temperature and precipitation). This study indicates that most models do not reproduce the underlying processes driving regional τveg and τsoil, highlighting the need for improving the model parameterization and adding key processes such as biotic disturbances and permafrost–carbon climate responses