Articles | Volume 14, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
25 Jan 2021
Development and technical paper |
| 25 Jan 2021
| 25 Jan 2021
Implementation of sequential cropping into JULESvn5.2 land-surface model
Camilla Mathison
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Andrew J. Challinor
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Chetan Deva
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Pete Falloon
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Sébastien Garrigues
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK
Environnement Méditerranéen et Modélisation des AgroHydrosystèmes (EMMAH), INRAE, Avignon Université, 228 route de l'Aérodrome Domaine Saint Paul–Site Agroparc, Avignon, France
Sophie Moulin
Environnement Méditerranéen et Modélisation des AgroHydrosystèmes (EMMAH), INRAE, Avignon Université, 228 route de l'Aérodrome Domaine Saint Paul–Site Agroparc, Avignon, France
Karina Williams
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, UK
Andy Wiltshire
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, UK
Related authors
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Camilla Mathison, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth’s climate may change in the future. In recent decades, the number and types of SCMs have increased significantly, hindering efforts to understand cross-model differences. In this study, we provide an overview of the main principles guiding climate simulation by SCMs, as well as a description of most high-profile SCMs. This work offers a clear reference to support the informed use of these important tools.
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Maria P. Veláquez-García, Richard J. Pope, Steven T. Turnock, Chetan Deva, David P. Moore, Guilherme Mataveli, Steve R. Arnold, Ruth M. Doherty, and Martyn P. Chiperffield
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3579, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3579, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Incorporating fire simulation into climate models is crucial for accurately representing the interactions between fires, ecosystems, and climate, thereby enhancing climate projections. In South America, the INFERNO fire model captures active fire zones, e.g. the Amazon Arc of Deforestation, but it overestimates emissions in other areas (mainly in tree-rich ecosystems). The model errors capturing seasonal emission cycles relate to the effects of soil moisture on plant flammability and growth.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Camilla Mathison, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth’s climate may change in the future. In recent decades, the number and types of SCMs have increased significantly, hindering efforts to understand cross-model differences. In this study, we provide an overview of the main principles guiding climate simulation by SCMs, as well as a description of most high-profile SCMs. This work offers a clear reference to support the informed use of these important tools.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Martin Richard Willett, Melissa Brooks, Andrew Bushell, Paul Earnshaw, Samantha Smith, Lorenzo Tomassini, Martin Best, Ian Boutle, Jennifer Brooke, John M. Edwards, Kalli Furtado, Catherine Hardacre, Andrew J. Hartley, Alan Hewitt, Ben Johnson, Adrian Lock, Andy Malcolm, Jane Mulcahy, Eike Müller, Heather Rumbold, Gabriel G. Rooney, Alistair Sellar, Masashi Ujiie, Annelize van Niekerk, Andy Wiltshire, and Michael Whitall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Global Atmosphere (GA) configurations of the Unified Model (UM) and Global Land (GL) configurations of JULES are developed for use in any global atmospheric modelling application. We describe a recent iteration of these configurations, GA8GL9, which includes improvements to the represenation of convection and other physical processes. GA8GL9 is used for operational weather prediction in the UK and forms the basis for the next GA and GL configuration.
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Beiyao Xu, Steven Dobbie, Huiyi Yang, Lianxin Yang, Yu Jiang, Andrew Challinor, Karina Williams, Yunxia Wang, and Tijian Wang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4077, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4077, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone (O3) pollution harms rice production and threatens food security. To understand these impacts, we calibrated a crop model using unique data from experiments where rice was grown in open fields under controlled O3 exposure (free air). This is the first time such data has been used to improve a model’s ability to predict how rice responds to O3 pollution. Our work provides a more accurate tool to study O3’s effects and guide strategies to protect agriculture.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Hanna Lee, Stefano Materia, Julia E. M .S. Nabel, Taejin Park, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth System Models are the principal tools for scientists to study past, present, and future climate changes. This work investigates the ability of a set of them to represent the observed changes in vegetation, which are vital to estimating the impact of future climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This study highlights the main limitations in correctly representing vegetation variability. These tools still need further development to improve our understanding of future changes.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Henk Eskes, Athanasios Tsikerdekis, Melanie Ades, Mihai Alexe, Anna Carlin Benedictow, Yasmine Bennouna, Lewis Blake, Idir Bouarar, Simon Chabrillat, Richard Engelen, Quentin Errera, Johannes Flemming, Sebastien Garrigues, Jan Griesfeller, Vincent Huijnen, Luka Ilić, Antje Inness, John Kapsomenakis, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Augustin Mortier, Mark Parrington, Isabelle Pison, Mikko Pitkänen, Samuel Remy, Andreas Richter, Anja Schoenhardt, Michael Schulz, Valerie Thouret, Thorsten Warneke, Christos Zerefos, and Vincent-Henri Peuch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 9475–9514, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9475-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9475-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) provides global analyses and forecasts of aerosols and trace gases in the atmosphere. On 27 June 2023 a major upgrade, Cy48R1, became operational. Comparisons with in situ, surface remote sensing, aircraft, and balloon and satellite observations show that the new CAMS system is a significant improvement. The results quantify the skill of CAMS to forecast impactful events, such as wildfires, dust storms and air pollution peaks.
Douglas McNeall, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1059–1089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We can run simulations of the land surface and carbon cycle, using computer models to help us understand and predict climate change and its impacts. These simulations are not perfect reproductions of the real land surface, and that can make them less effective tools. We use new statistical and computational techniques to help us understand how different our models are from the real land surface, how to make them more realistic, and how well we can simulate past and future climate.
Sebastien Garrigues, Melanie Ades, Samuel Remy, Johannes Flemming, Zak Kipling, Istvan Laszlo, Mark Parrington, Antje Inness, Roberto Ribas, Luke Jones, Richard Engelen, and Vincent-Henri Peuch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10473–10487, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10473-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10473-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) provides global monitoring of aerosols using the ECMWF forecast model constrained by the assimilation of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD). This work aims at evaluating the assimilation of the NOAA VIIRS AOD product in the ECMWF model. It shows that the introduction of VIIRS in the CAMS data assimilation system enhances the accuracy of the aerosol analysis, particularly over Europe and desert and maritime sites.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Anna Agustí-Panareda, Jérôme Barré, Sébastien Massart, Antje Inness, Ilse Aben, Melanie Ades, Bianca C. Baier, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Tobias Borsdorff, Nicolas Bousserez, Souhail Boussetta, Michael Buchwitz, Luca Cantarello, Cyril Crevoisier, Richard Engelen, Henk Eskes, Johannes Flemming, Sébastien Garrigues, Otto Hasekamp, Vincent Huijnen, Luke Jones, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Joe McNorton, Nicolas Meilhac, Stefan Noël, Mark Parrington, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Michel Ramonet, Miha Razinger, Maximilian Reuter, Roberto Ribas, Martin Suttie, Colm Sweeney, Jérôme Tarniewicz, and Lianghai Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3829–3859, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a global dataset of atmospheric CO2 and CH4, the two most important human-made greenhouse gases, which covers almost 2 decades (2003–2020). It is produced by combining satellite data of CO2 and CH4 with a weather and air composition prediction model, and it has been carefully evaluated against independent observations to ensure validity and point out deficiencies to the user. This dataset can be used for scientific studies in the field of climate change and the global carbon cycle.
Sebastien Garrigues, Samuel Remy, Julien Chimot, Melanie Ades, Antje Inness, Johannes Flemming, Zak Kipling, Istvan Laszlo, Angela Benedetti, Roberto Ribas, Soheila Jafariserajehlou, Bertrand Fougnie, Shobha Kondragunta, Richard Engelen, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Mark Parrington, Nicolas Bousserez, Margarita Vazquez Navarro, and Anna Agusti-Panareda
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14657–14692, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14657-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) provides global monitoring of aerosols using the ECMWF forecast model constrained by the assimilation of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD). This work aims at evaluating two new satellite AODs to enhance the CAMS aerosol global forecast. It highlights the spatial and temporal differences between the satellite AOD products at the model spatial resolution, which is essential information to design multi-satellite AOD data assimilation schemes.
Stephanie Woodward, Alistair A. Sellar, Yongming Tang, Marc Stringer, Andrew Yool, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14503–14528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the dust scheme in the UKESM1 Earth system model and show generally good agreement with observations. Comparing with the closely related HadGEM3-GC3.1 model, we show that dust differences are not only due to inter-model differences but also to the dust size distribution. Under climate change, HadGEM3-GC3.1 dust hardly changes, but UKESM1 dust decreases because that model includes the vegetation response which, in our models, has a bigger impact on dust than climate change itself.
Mahdi André Nakhavali, Lina M. Mercado, Iain P. Hartley, Stephen Sitch, Fernanda V. Cunha, Raffaello di Ponzio, Laynara F. Lugli, Carlos A. Quesada, Kelly M. Andersen, Sarah E. Chadburn, Andy J. Wiltshire, Douglas B. Clark, Gyovanni Ribeiro, Lara Siebert, Anna C. M. Moraes, Jéssica Schmeisk Rosa, Rafael Assis, and José L. Camargo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5241–5269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In tropical ecosystems, the availability of rock-derived elements such as P can be very low. Thus, without a representation of P cycling, tropical forest responses to rising atmospheric CO2 conditions in areas such as Amazonia remain highly uncertain. We introduced P dynamics and its interactions with the N and P cycles into the JULES model. Our results highlight the potential for high P limitation and therefore lower CO2 fertilization capacity in the Amazon forest with low-fertility soils.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Stefano Materia, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Emilie Joetzjer, Hanna Lee, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Taejin Park, Philippe Peylin, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 2405–2428, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global climate models are the scientist’s tools used for studying past, present, and future climate conditions. This work examines the ability of a group of our tools in reproducing and capturing the right timing and length of the season when plants show their green leaves. This season, indeed, is fundamental for CO2 exchanges between land, atmosphere, and climate. This work shows that discrepancies compared to observations remain, demanding further polishing of these tools.
Fiona M. O'Connor, N. Luke Abraham, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Paul T. Griffiths, Catherine Hardacre, Ben T. Johnson, Ron Kahana, James Keeble, Byeonghyeon Kim, Olaf Morgenstern, Jane P. Mulcahy, Mark Richardson, Eddy Robertson, Jeongbyn Seo, Sungbo Shim, João C. Teixeira, Steven T. Turnock, Jonny Williams, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Stephanie Woodward, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1211–1243, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper calculates how changes in emissions and/or concentrations of different atmospheric constituents since the pre-industrial era have altered the Earth's energy budget at the present day using a metric called effective radiative forcing. The impact of land use change is also assessed. We find that individual contributions do not add linearly, and different Earth system interactions can affect the magnitude of the calculated effective radiative forcing.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Felix Leung, Karina Williams, Stephen Sitch, Amos P. K. Tai, Andy Wiltshire, Jemma Gornall, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Timothy Arkebauer, and David Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6201–6213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-level ozone (O3) is detrimental to plant productivity and crop yield. Currently, the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) includes a representation of crops (JULES-crop). The parameters for O3 damage in soybean in JULES-crop were calibrated against photosynthesis measurements from the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (SoyFACE). The result shows good performance for yield, and it helps contribute to understanding of the impacts of climate and air pollution on food security.
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Johannes Meyerholt, Sönke Zaehle, Pierre Friedlingstein, Victor Brovkin, Yuanchao Fan, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, Hanna Lee, Daniele Peano, Benjamin Smith, David Wårlind, and Andy J. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020
Cited articles
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration
– Guidelines for computing crop water requirements – FAO Irrigation and
drainage paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
available at: http://www.fao.org/3/X0490E/x0490e00.htm (last access: June 2019), 1998. a
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011. a
Betts, R. A.: Integrated approaches to climate-crop modelling: needs and
challenges, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 360, 2049–2065, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1739, 2005. a
Bhattacharyya, T., Pal, D., Easter, M., Batjes, N., Milne, E., Gajbhiye, K.,
Chandran, P., Ray, S., Mandal, C., Paustian, K., Williams, S., Killian, K.,
Coleman, K., Falloon, P., and Powlson, D.: Modelled soil organic carbon
stocks and changes in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India from 1980 to 2030,
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 122, 84–94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.010,
soil carbon stocks at regional scales, 2007. a, b
Biemans, H., Speelman, L., Ludwig, F., Moors, E., Wiltshire, A., Kumar, P.,
Gerten, D., and Kabat, P.: Future water resources for food production in five South Asian river basins and potential for adaptation – A modeling study,
Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S117–S131,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.092, 2013. a
Bodh, S. P. C., Rai, S. J. P., Sharma, S. A., Gajria, S. P., Yadav, S. M.,
Virmani, S. S., and Pandey, S. R.: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2015,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, available at: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in (last access: June 2019), 2015. a, b, c
Bondeau, A., Smith, P. C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W.,
Gerten, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M., and Smith, B.:
Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial
carbon balance, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 679–706,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x,
2007. a
Caldwell, R. M. and Hansen, J. W.: Simulation of multiple cropping systems with
CropSys, pp. 397–412, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2842-1_24, 1993. a
Calvet, J.-C., Noilhan, J., Roujean, J.-L., Bessemoulin, P., Cabelguenne, M.,
Olioso, A., and Wigneron, J.-P.: An interactive vegetation SVAT model tested
against data from six contrasting sites, Agr. Forest Meteorol.,
92, 73–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00091-4, 1998. a
Challinor, A., Wheeler, T., Craufurd, P., Slingo, J., and Grimes, D.: Design
and optimisation of a large-area process-based model for annual crops,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 124, 99–120,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.01.002,
2004. a, b
Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–722, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011, 2011. a, b, c, d
Cong, W.-F., Hoffland, E., Li, L., Six, J., Sun, J.-H., Bao, X.-G., Zhang, F.-S., and Werf, W. V. D.: Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen,
Glob. Change Biol., 21, 1715–1726, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12738,
2015. a
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., P., G. B., Bauer, Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R.,
Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H.,
Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart, F.: The
ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828,
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011. a
Dury, J., Schaller, N., Garcia, F., Reynaud, A., and Bergez, J. E.: Models to
support cropping plan and crop rotation decisions. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 32, 567–580, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0037-x, 2012. a
Erenstein, O. and Laxmi, V.: Zero tillage impacts in India's rice-wheat
systems: A review, Soil Till. Res., 100, 1–14,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.05.001,
2008. a, b, c
Erenstein, O., Farooq, U., Malik, R., and Sharif, M.: On-farm impacts of zero
tillage wheat in South Asia's rice-wheat systems, Field Crop. Res., 105,
240–252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.10.010,
2008. a
Fischer, R.: Definitions and determination of crop yield, yield gaps, and of
rates of change, Field Crop. Res., 182, 9–18,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.12.006, 2015. a
Frieler, K., Levermann, A., Elliott, J., Heinke, J., Arneth, A., Bierkens, M. F. P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Deryng, D., Döll, P., Falloon, P., Fekete, B., Folberth, C., Friend, A. D., Gellhorn, C., Gosling, S. N., Haddeland, I., Khabarov, N., Lomas, M., Masaki, Y., Nishina, K., Neumann, K., Oki, T., Pavlick, R., Ruane, A. C., Schmid, E., Schmitz, C., Stacke, T., Stehfest, E., Tang, Q., Wisser, D., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., Lotze-Campen, H., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: A framework for the cross-sectoral integration of multi-model impact projections: land use decisions under climate impacts uncertainties, Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 447–460, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-447-2015, 2015. a
Garrigues, S., Olioso, A., Calvet, J. C., Martin, E., Lafont, S., Moulin, S., Chanzy, A., Marloie, O., Buis, S., Desfonds, V., Bertrand, N., and Renard, D.: Evaluation of land surface model simulations of evapotranspiration over a 12-year crop succession: impact of soil hydraulic and vegetation properties, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3109–3131, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3109-2015, 2015a. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q
Garrigues, S., Olioso, A., Carrer, D., Decharme, B., Calvet, J.-C., Martin, E., Moulin, S., and Marloie, O.: Impact of climate, vegetation, soil and crop management variables on multi-year ISBA-A-gs simulations of evapotranspiration over a Mediterranean crop site, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3033–3053, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3033-2015, 2015b. a
Garrigues, S., Boone, A., Decharme, B., Olioso, A., Albergel, C., Calvet, J.-C., Moulin, S., Buis, S., and Martin, E.: Impacts of the Soil Water
Transfer Parameterization on the Simulation of Evapotranspiration over a
14-Year Mediterranean Crop Succession, J. Hydrometeorol., 19,
3–25, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0058.1, 2018. a, b, c, d, e
Goswami, B. and Xavier, P. K.: Dynamics of “interna” interannual variability
of the Indian summer monsoon in a GCM, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D24104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006042, 2005. a
Griffiths, F. E. W., Lyndon, R., and Bennett, M.: The Effects of Vernalization
on the Growth of the Wheat Shoot Apex, Ann. Bot.-London, 56, 501–511,
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087035, 1985. a
Harding, R., Blyth, E., Tuinenburg, O., and Wiltshire, A.: Land atmosphere
feedbacks and their role in the water resources of the Ganges basin, Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S85–S92,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.016, 2013. a
Harper, A. B., Williams, K. E., McGuire, P. C., Duran Rojas, M. C., Hemming, D., Verhoef, A., Huntingford, C., Rowland, L., Marthews, T., Breder Eller, C., Mathison, C., Nobrega, R. L. B., Gedney, N., Vidale, P. L., Otu-Larbi, F., Pandey, D., Garrigues, S., Wright, A., Slevin, D., De Kauwe, M. G., Blyth, E., Ärdo, J., Black, A., Bonal, D., Buchmann, N., Burban, B., Fuchs, K., de Grandcourt, A., Mammarella, I., Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Nouvellon, Y., Restrepo-Coupe, N., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Improvement of modelling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-273, in review, 2020. a
Hatfield, J. L. and Prueger, J. H.: Temperature extremes: Effect on plant
growth and development, Weather Clim. Extremes, 10, 4–10,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001, 2015. a
Hu, S., Mo, X., and Lin, Z.: Optimizing the photosynthetic parameter Vcmax by
assimilating MODIS-fPAR and MODIS-NDVI with a process-based ecosystem model,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 198–199, 320–334,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.09.002,
2014. a
Hudson, R.: Management of Agricultural, Forestry, Fisheries and Rural
Enterprise – Volume I, EOLSS Publications, available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-eGvCwAAQBAJ (last access: June 2019), 2009. a
Iizumi, T. and Ramankutty, N.: How do weather and climate influence cropping
area and intensity?, Glob. Food Secur.-Agr., 4, 46–50,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.11.003,
2015. a
Jones, R. G., Noguer, M., Hassell, D. C., Hudson, D., Wilson, S. S., Jenkins, G. J., and Mitchell, J. F.: Generating high resolution climate change
scenarios using PRECIS, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK, 40 pp.,
available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/applied-science/precis/tech_man_v2.pdf (last access: January 2021), 2004. a
JULES Collaboration: Rose suite access page, available at: https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/jules/browser/main/branches/dev/camillamathison/vn5.2_croprotate_irrigtiles,
last access: January 2021. a
Kumar, P., Wiltshire, A., Mathison, C., Asharaf, S., Ahrens, B., Lucas-Picher, P., Christensen, J. H., Gobiet, A., Saeed, F., Hagemann, S., and Jacob, D.:
Downscaled climate change projections with uncertainty assessment over India using a high resolution multi-model approach, Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S18–S30,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.051,
2013. a, b
Kumar, R., Singh, R., and Sharma, K.: Water resources of India, Current
Sci. India, 89, 794–811, 2005. a
Laik, R., Sharma, S., Idris, M., Singh, A., Singh, S., Bhatt, B., Saharawat, Y., Humphreys, E., and Ladha, J.: Integration of conservation agriculture
with best management practices for improving system performance of the
rice–wheat rotation in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of India,
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 195, 68–82,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.001,
2014. a
Liu, L., Xu, X., Zhuang, D., Chen, X., and Li, S.: Changes in the Potential
Multiple Cropping System in Response to Climate Change in China from
1960–2010, PLoS ONE, 8, e80990, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080990,
2013. a
Mahajan, A. and Gupta, R. D. (Eds.): The Rice–Wheat Cropping System,
pp. 109–117, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9875-8_7, 2009. a, b, c
Makino, A.: Rubisco and nitrogen relationships in rice: Leaf photosynthesis and
plant growth, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 49, 319–327,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2003.10410016, 2003. a
Mathison, C., Wiltshire, A., Dimri, A., Falloon, P., Jacob, D., Kumar, P.,
Moors, E., Ridley, J., Siderius, C., Stoffel, M., and Yasunari, T.: Regional
projections of North Indian climate for adaptation studies, Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S4–S17,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.066,
2013. a, b
Mathison, C., Wiltshire, A. J., Falloon, P., and Challinor, A. J.: South Asia river-flow projections and their implications for water resources, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4783–4810, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d
Met Office Science Repository Service: Scientific Collaboration Trac page, available at: https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac, last access: January 2021. a
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet: 2.
Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net
primary production in the year 2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB1022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947,
2008. a
Mueller, B., Hauser, M., Iles, C., Rimi, R. H., Zwiers, F. W., and Wan, H.:
Lengthening of the growing season in wheat and maize producing regions,
Weather Clim. Extremes, 9, 47–56,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.04.001, 2015. a
Noilhan, J. and Planton, S.: A Simple Parameterization of Land Surface
Processes for Meteorological Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 536–549,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<0536:ASPOLS>2.0.CO;2, 1989. a
Ogbaga, C.: Regulation of Photosynthesis in Sorghum in response to drought, PhD
Thesis, University of Manchester, 1, 1–186, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4756.5208,
2014. a
Olsovska, K., Kovar, M., Brestic, M., Zivcak, M., Slamka, P., and Shao, H. B.:
Genotypically Identifying Wheat Mesophyll Conductance Regulation under
Progressive Drought Stress, Front. Plant Sci., 7, 1111,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01111,
2016. a
Osborne, T., Gornall, J., Hooker, J., Williams, K., Wiltshire, A., Betts, R., and Wheeler, T.: JULES-crop: a parametrisation of crops in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1139–1155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1139-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q
Petrie, C. A., Singh, R. N., Bates, J., Dixit, Y., French, C. A. I., Hodell, D. A., Jones, P. J., Lancelotti, C., Lynam, F., Neogi, S., Pandey, A. K.,
Parikh, D., Pawar, V., Redhouse, D. I., and Singh, D. P.: Adaptation to
Variable Environments, Resilience to Climate Change: Investigating Land,
Water and Settlement in Indus Northwest India, Curr. Anthropol., 58,
1–30, https://doi.org/10.1086/690112,
2017. a
Pires, G. F., Abrahão, G. M., Brumatti, L. M., Oliveira, L. J., Costa, M. H.,
Liddicoat, S., Kato, E., and Ladle, R. J.: Increased climate risk in
Brazilian double cropping agriculture systems: Implications for land use in
Northern Brazil, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 228–229, 286–298,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.07.005,
2016. a
Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., and Döll, P.: MIRCA2000-Global monthly
irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A new high-resolution
data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB1011,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003435, gB1011, 2010. a
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the
planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year
2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB1003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002952, 2008. a
Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., and, N. D. M.: Recent patterns of crop yield
growth and stagnation, Nat. Commun., 3, 1293–1300,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2296, 2012a. a, b, c
Rivington, M. and Koo, J.: Report on the Meta-Analysis of Crop Modelling for
Climate Change and Food Security Survey, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security Challenge Program of the CGIAR, available at:
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/9114/retrieve (last access: July 2019),
2010. a, b
Robertson, M., Brooking, I., and Ritchie, J.: Temperature Response of
Vernalization in Wheat: Modelling the Effect on the Final Number of Mainstem
Leaves, Ann. Bot.-London, 78, 371–381, https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1996.0132, 1996. a
Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J., Hatfield, J., Ruane, A., Boote, K., Thorburn, P.,
Antle, J., Nelson, G., Porter, C., Janssen, S., Asseng, S., Basso, B., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Baigorria, G., and Winter, J.: The Agricultural Model
Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Protocols and pilot studies,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 170, 166–182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.011, 2013. a, b
Rosenzweig, C., Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Ruane, A. C., Müller, C., Arneth, A., Boote, K. J., Folberth, C., Glotter, M., Khabarov, N., Neumann, K.,
Piontek, F., Pugh, T. A. M., Schmid, E., Stehfest, E., Yang, H., and Jones, J. W.: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in
a global gridded crop model intercomparison, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3268–3273, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222463110, 2014. a, b
ROSE Suite JULES Collaboration: Sequential Crop rose suite access page, available at:
https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/roses-u/browser/main/branches/dev/camillamathison/vn5.2_croprotate_irrigtiles, last access: January 2021. a
Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Rammig, A., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Knauer, J., Langerwisch, F., Lucht, W., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., and Waha, K.: LPJmL4 a dynamic global vegetation model with managed land Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1343–1375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018, 2018. a
Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A., and Ramankutty, N.: Crop planting
dates: an analysis of global patterns, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 19,
607–620, 2010. a
Shannon, S., Smith, R., Wiltshire, A., Payne, T., Huss, M., Betts, R., Caesar,
J., Koutroulis, A., Jones, D., and Harrison, S.: Global glacier volume
projections under high-end climate change scenarios, The Cryosphere, 13,
325–350, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-325-2019, 2019. a
Sharma, B. and Sharma, H.: Status of Rice Production in Assam, India, J.
Rice Res., 3, e121, https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-4338.1000e121, 2015. a
Simmons, A., Uppala, S., Dee, D., and Kobayashi, S.: ERA-Interim: New ECMWF
reanalysis products from 1989 onwards, ECMWF Newsletter – Winter 2006/07,
110, 25–35, 2007. a
Sinclair, T., Jr, P. P., Kimball, B., Adamsen, F., LaMorte, R., Wall, G.,
Hunsaker, D., Adam, N., Brooks, T., Garcia, R., Thompson, T., Leavitt, S.,
and Matthias, A.: Leaf nitrogen concentration of wheat subjected to elevated
[CO2] and either water or N deficits, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.,
79, 53–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00146-2,
2000. a
Tuinenburg, O. A., Hutjes, R. W. A., Stacke, T., Wiltshire, A., and
Lucas-Picher, P.: Effects of irrigation in india on the atmospheric water
budget, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 1028–1050,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-078.1, 2014. a, b
Waha, K., van Bussel, L. G. J., Müller, C., and Bondeau, A.: Climate-driven
simulation of global crop sowing dates, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 21,
247–259, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00678.x, 2012. a, b
Waha, K., Müller, C., Bondeau, A., Dietrich, J., Kurukulasuriya, P.,
Heinke, J., and Lotze-Campen, H.: Adaptation to climate change through the
choice of cropping system and sowing date in sub-Saharan Africa, Global Environ. Chang., 23, 130–143,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.001,
2013. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Wang, E., Martre, P., Zhao, Z., Ewert, F., Maiorano, A., Rötter, R. P.,
Kimball, B. A., Ottman, M. J., Wall, G. W., White, J. W., Reynolds, M. P.,
Alderman, P. D., Aggarwal, P. K., Anothai, J., Basso, B., Biernath, C.,
Cammarano, D., Challinor, A. J., Sanctis, G. D., Doltra, J., Dumont, B.,
Fereres, E., Garcia-Vila, M., Gayler, S., Hoogenboom, G., Hunt, L. A.,
Izaurralde, R. C., Jabloun, M., Jones, C. D., Kersebaum, K. C., Koehler, A.-K., Liu, L., Müller, C., Kumar, S. N., Nendel, C., O'Leary, G.,
Olesen, J. E., Palosuo, T., Priesack, E., Rezaei, E. E., Ripoche, D., Ruane, A. C., Semenov, M. A., Shcherbak, I., Stöckle, C., Stratonovitch, P.,
Streck, T., Supit, I., Tao, F., Thorburn, P., Waha, K., Wallach, D., Wang, Z., Wolf, J., Zhu, Y., and Asseng, S.: The uncertainty of crop yield
projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions, Nat. Plants, 3, 17102, https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.102, 2017. a, b
Warszawski, L., Friend, A., Ostberg, S., Frieler, K., Lucht, W., Schaphoff, S.,
Beerling, D., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Kahana, R., Ito, A.,
Keribin, R., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M., Nishina, K., Pavlick, R., Rademacher, T. T., Buechner, M., Piontek, F., Schewe, J., Serdeczny, O., and
Schellnhuber, H. J.: A multi-model analysis of risk of ecosystem shifts under
climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044018,
2013. a, b, c
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., and Schewe, J.: The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP):
Project framework, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
3228–3232, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312330110, 2014. a, b, c
Williams, K., Gornall, J., Harper, A., Wiltshire, A., Hemming, D., Quaife, T., Arkebauer, T., and Scoby, D.: Evaluation of JULES-crop performance against site observations of irrigated maize from Mead, Nebraska, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1291–1320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1291-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f
Williams, K. E. and Falloon, P. D.: Sources of interannual yield variability
in JULES-crop and implications for forcing with seasonal weather forecasts,
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3987–3997, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3987-2015,
2015. a
Williams, K. E., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Mercado, L. M., Mathison, C. T., Falloon, P. D., Cox, P. M., and Kim, J.: How can the First ISLSCP Field Experiment contribute to present-day efforts to evaluate water stress in JULESv5.0?, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, 2019. a, b
Xue, W.: Evaluation of biophysical factors driving temporal variations in C
gain, water use and yield production in Rice, PhD thesis, Department of Plant
Ecology, University of Bayreuth, 1, 1–230, available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295562013_Evaluation_of_biophysical_factors_driving_temporal_variations_in_carbon_gain_water_use_and_yield_production_in_rice (last access: March 2019),
2015. a
Zhang, G., Dong, J., Zhou, C., Xu, X., Wang, M., Ouyang, H., and Xiao, X.:
Increasing cropping intensity in response to climate warming in Tibetan
Plateau, China, Field Crop. Res., 142, 36–46,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.11.021,
2013. a
Short summary
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system, particularly in tropical regions. Typically, land surface models only simulate a single crop per year. To understand how sequential crops influence surface fluxes, we implement sequential cropping in JULES to simulate all the crops grown within a year at a given location in a seamless way. We demonstrate the method using a site in Avignon, four locations in India and a regional run for two Indian states.
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system,...
Special issue