Articles | Volume 15, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1971-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-15-1971-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
09 Mar 2022
Model evaluation paper |
| 09 Mar 2022
| 09 Mar 2022
Global evaluation of the Ecosystem Demography model (ED v3.0)
Lei Ma
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20770, USA
George Hurtt
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20770, USA
Lesley Ott
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Ritvik Sahajpal
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20770, USA
Justin Fisk
Regrow Agriculture Inc., Durham, NH 03824, USA
Rachel Lamb
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20770, USA
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20770, USA
Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, 117570,
Singapore
Steve Flanagan
Wildland Fire Science, Tall Timbers Research Station and Land
Conservancy, Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA
Louise Chini
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20770, USA
Abhishek Chatterjee
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD 21046, USA
now at: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91326, USA
Joseph Sullivan
Department of Plant Science & Landscape Architecture, University
of Maryland, College Park, MD 20770, USA
Related authors
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.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Aolin Jia, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Lei Ma, Zhihao Wang, and Shuo Xu
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 869–895, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-869-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-869-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites are now producing multiple global land surface temperature (LST) products; however, they suffer from data gaps caused by cloud cover, seriously restricting the applications, and few products provide gap-free global hourly LST. We produced global hourly, 5 km, all-sky LST data from 2011 to 2021 using geostationary and polar-orbiting satellite data. Based on the assessment, it has high accuracy and can be used to estimate evapotranspiration, drought, etc.
Louise Chini, George Hurtt, Ritvik Sahajpal, Steve Frolking, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Stephen Sitch, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Lei Ma, Lesley Ott, Julia Pongratz, and Benjamin Poulter
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4175–4189, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon emissions from land-use change are a large and uncertain component of the global carbon cycle. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 (LUH2) dataset was developed as an input to carbon and climate simulations and has been updated annually for the Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2 updates and describe the 2019 version which used new cropland and grazing land data inputs for the globally important region of Brazil.
George C. Hurtt, Louise Chini, Ritvik Sahajpal, Steve Frolking, Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Katherine Calvin, Jonathan C. Doelman, Justin Fisk, Shinichiro Fujimori, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Tomoko Hasegawa, Peter Havlik, Andreas Heinimann, Florian Humpenöder, Johan Jungclaus, Jed O. Kaplan, Jennifer Kennedy, Tamás Krisztin, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Lei Ma, Ole Mertz, Julia Pongratz, Alexander Popp, Benjamin Poulter, Keywan Riahi, Elena Shevliakova, Elke Stehfest, Peter Thornton, Francesco N. Tubiello, Detlef P. van Vuuren, and Xin Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5425–5464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
To estimate the effects of human land use activities on the carbon–climate system, a new set of global gridded land use forcing datasets was developed to link historical land use data to eight future scenarios in a standard format required by climate models. This new generation of land use harmonization (LUH2) includes updated inputs, higher spatial resolution, more detailed land use transitions, and the addition of important agricultural management layers; it will be used for CMIP6 simulations.
Yuan Sun, Huan Xie, Xiaohua Tong, Qi Xu, Binbin Li, Changda Liu, Min Ji, and Hao Tang
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLVIII-G-2025, 1421–1426, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-G-2025-1421-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-G-2025-1421-2025, 2025
Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Michael O'Sullivan, Maria Carolina Duran-Rojas, Thais Michele Rosan, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Louise P. Chini, and George C. Hurtt
Biogeosciences, 22, 3547–3561, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3547-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3547-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Indonesia is the world's third-highest carbon emitter from land use change. However, there are uncertainties in the carbon emissions of Indonesia. Our best estimate of carbon emissions from land use change in Indonesia is 0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr with a steady trend. Despite many uncertainties created by drivers, models, and products, we also found robust agreements between these models and products. All agree that Indonesian carbon emissions from LULCC (land use and land cover change) have had no decreasing trend for the last 2 decades.
Yue Li, Gang Tang, Eleanor O’Rourke, Samar Minallah, Martim Mas e Braga, Sophie Nowicki, Robin S. Smith, David M. Lawrence, George C. Hurtt, Daniele Peano, Gesa Meyer, Birgit Hassler, Jiafu Mao, Yongkang Xue, and Martin Juckes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3207, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3207, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Land and Land Ice Theme Opportunities describe a list that contains 25 variable groups with 716 variables, which are potentially available to the broad scientific audience for performing analysis in land-atmosphere coupling, hydrological processes and freshwater systems, glacier and ice sheet mass balance and their influence on the sea levels, land use, and plant phenology.
Martijn Pallandt, Abhishek Chatterjee, Lesley Ott, Julia Marshall, and Mathias Göckede
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-604, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is greatly affecting the Arctic. Among these changes is the thawing of permanently frozen soil, which may increase the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG). In this study we investigated the capabilities of tall GHG measuring towers and two satellite systems to detect this methane release. We find that these systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and that individually they struggle to detect these changes, though combined they might cover their weak spots.
Edna Johanna Molina Bacca, Miodrag Stevanović, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Jonathan Cornelis Doelman, Louise Parsons Chini, Jan Volkholz, Katja Frieler, Christopher Paul Oliver Reyer, George Hurtt, Florian Humpenöder, Kristine Karstens, Jens Heinke, Christoph Müller, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Elke Stehfest, and Alexander Popp
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 753–801, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-753-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-753-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land-use change projections are vital for impact studies. This study compares updated land-use model projections, including CO2 fertilization among other upgrades, from the MAgPIE and IMAGE models under three scenarios, highlighting differences, uncertainty hotspots, and harmonization effects. Key findings include reduced bioenergy crop demand projections and differences in grassland area allocation and sizes, with socioeconomic–climate scenarios' largest effect on variance starting in 2030.
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.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Dilli Paudel, Michiel Kallenberg, Stella Ofori-Ampofo, Hilmy Baja, Ron van Bree, Aike Potze, Pratishtha Poudel, Abdelrahman Saleh, Weston Anderson, Malte von Bloh, Andres Castellano, Oumnia Ennaji, Raed Hamed, Rahel Laudien, Donghoon Lee, Inti Luna, Michele Meroni, Janet Mumo Mutuku, Siyabusa Mkuhlani, Jonathan Richetti, Alex C. Ruane, Ritvik Sahajpal, Guanyuan Shai, Vasileios Sitokonstantinou, Rogério de Souza Nóia Júnior, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Robert Strong, Lily-belle Sweet, Petar Vojnovic, and Ioannis N. Athanasiadis
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-83, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-83, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Improving crop yield predictions is crucial for food security. Prior research relied on case studies, making it hard to compare methods & track progress. We introduce CY-Bench, a global dataset for forecasting maize and wheat yields across diverse farming systems in over 25 countries. It includes standardized weather, soil, and satellite data, curated by a diverse set of experts. CY-Bench supports the development of better forecasting tools to help decision-makers plan for global food security.
Jeongmin Yun, Junjie Liu, Brendan Byrne, Brad Weir, Lesley E. Ott, Kathryn McKain, Bianca C. Baier, Luciana V. Gatti, and Sebastien C. Biraud
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1725–1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1725-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1725-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study quantifies errors in regional net surface–atmosphere CO2 flux estimates from an inverse model ensemble using airborne CO2 measurements. Our results show that flux error estimates based on observations significantly exceed those computed from the ensemble spread of flux estimates in regions with high fossil fuel emissions. This finding suggests the presence of systematic biases in the inversion estimates, associated with errors in the fossil fuel emissions common to all models.
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
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.
Peter Somkuti, Greg M. McGarragh, Christopher O'Dell, Antonio Di Noia, Leif Vogel, Sean Crowell, Lesley E. Ott, and Hartmut Bösch
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-145, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-145, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for AMT
Short summary
Short summary
In space-based estimates of atmospheric methane concentrations, one can often observe biases that look like imprints of surface features. We performed realistic simulation experiments and find the root cause to be unaccounted aerosols. Since good knowledge of aerosols is difficult to achieve for operational science data processing, we conclude that a comprehensive surface bias correction scheme is highly important for missions utilizing the 2.3 µm spectral band for methane retrievals.
Xiaoran Zhu, Dong Chen, Maruko Kogure, Elizabeth Hoy, Logan T. Berner, Amy L. Breen, Abhishek Chatterjee, Scott J. Davidson, Gerald V. Frost, Teresa N. Hollingsworth, Go Iwahana, Randi R. Jandt, Anja N. Kade, Tatiana V. Loboda, Matt J. Macander, Michelle Mack, Charles E. Miller, Eric A. Miller, Susan M. Natali, Martha K. Raynolds, Adrian V. Rocha, Shiro Tsuyuzaki, Craig E. Tweedie, Donald A. Walker, Mathew Williams, Xin Xu, Yingtong Zhang, Nancy French, and Scott Goetz
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3687–3703, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3687-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic tundra is experiencing widespread physical and biological changes, largely in response to warming, yet scientific understanding of tundra ecology and change remains limited due to relatively limited accessibility and studies compared to other terrestrial biomes. To support synthesis research and inform future studies, we created the Synthesized Alaskan Tundra Field Dataset (SATFiD), which brings together field datasets and includes vegetation, active-layer, and fire properties.
Nicole Jacobs, Christopher W. O'Dell, Thomas E. Taylor, Thomas L. Logan, Brendan Byrne, Matthäus Kiel, Rigel Kivi, Pauli Heikkinen, Aronne Merrelli, Vivienne H. Payne, and Abhishek Chatterjee
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 1375–1401, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1375-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1375-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The accuracy of trace gas retrievals from spaceborne observations, like those from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2), are sensitive to the referenced digital elevation model (DEM). Therefore, we evaluate several global DEMs, used in versions 10 and 11 of the OCO-2 retrieval along with the Copernicus DEM. We explore the impacts of changing the DEM on biases in OCO-2-retrieved XCO2 and inferred CO2 fluxes. Our findings led to an update to OCO-2 v11.1 using the Copernicus DEM globally.
Yuanwei Qin, Xiangming Xiao, Hao Tang, Ralph Dubayah, Russell Doughty, Diyou Liu, Fang Liu, Yosio Shimabukuro, Egidio Arai, Xinxin Wang, and Berrien Moore III
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 321–336, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Forest definition has two major biophysical parameters, i.e., canopy height and canopy coverage. However, few studies have assessed forest cover maps in terms of these two parameters at a large scale. Here, we assessed the annual forest cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon using 1.1 million footprints of canopy height and canopy coverage. Over 93 % of our forest cover maps are consistent with the FAO forest definition, showing the high accuracy of these forest cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Thomas E. Taylor, Christopher W. O'Dell, David Baker, Carol Bruegge, Albert Chang, Lars Chapsky, Abhishek Chatterjee, Cecilia Cheng, Frédéric Chevallier, David Crisp, Lan Dang, Brian Drouin, Annmarie Eldering, Liang Feng, Brendan Fisher, Dejian Fu, Michael Gunson, Vance Haemmerle, Graziela R. Keller, Matthäus Kiel, Le Kuai, Thomas Kurosu, Alyn Lambert, Joshua Laughner, Richard Lee, Junjie Liu, Lucas Mandrake, Yuliya Marchetti, Gregory McGarragh, Aronne Merrelli, Robert R. Nelson, Greg Osterman, Fabiano Oyafuso, Paul I. Palmer, Vivienne H. Payne, Robert Rosenberg, Peter Somkuti, Gary Spiers, Cathy To, Brad Weir, Paul O. Wennberg, Shanshan Yu, and Jia Zong
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 3173–3209, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-3173-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-3173-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 and 3 (OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively) provide complementary spatiotemporal coverage from a sun-synchronous and precession orbit, respectively. Estimates of total column carbon dioxide (XCO2) derived from the two sensors using the same retrieval algorithm show broad consistency over a 2.5-year overlapping time record. This suggests that data from the two satellites may be used together for scientific analysis.
Brendan Byrne, David F. Baker, Sourish Basu, Michael Bertolacci, Kevin W. Bowman, Dustin Carroll, Abhishek Chatterjee, Frédéric Chevallier, Philippe Ciais, Noel Cressie, David Crisp, Sean Crowell, Feng Deng, Zhu Deng, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Manvendra K. Dubey, Sha Feng, Omaira E. García, David W. T. Griffith, Benedikt Herkommer, Lei Hu, Andrew R. Jacobson, Rajesh Janardanan, Sujong Jeong, Matthew S. Johnson, Dylan B. A. Jones, Rigel Kivi, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Shamil Maksyutov, John B. Miller, Scot M. Miller, Isamu Morino, Justus Notholt, Tomohiro Oda, Christopher W. O'Dell, Young-Suk Oh, Hirofumi Ohyama, Prabir K. Patra, Hélène Peiro, Christof Petri, Sajeev Philip, David F. Pollard, Benjamin Poulter, Marine Remaud, Andrew Schuh, Mahesh K. Sha, Kei Shiomi, Kimberly Strong, Colm Sweeney, Yao Té, Hanqin Tian, Voltaire A. Velazco, Mihalis Vrekoussis, Thorsten Warneke, John R. Worden, Debra Wunch, Yuanzhi Yao, Jeongmin Yun, Andrew Zammit-Mangion, and Ning Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 963–1004, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-963-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-963-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Changes in the carbon stocks of terrestrial ecosystems result in emissions and removals of CO2. These can be driven by anthropogenic activities (e.g., deforestation), natural processes (e.g., fires) or in response to rising CO2 (e.g., CO2 fertilization). This paper describes a dataset of CO2 emissions and removals derived from atmospheric CO2 observations. This pilot dataset informs current capabilities and future developments towards top-down monitoring and verification systems.
Aolin Jia, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Lei Ma, Zhihao Wang, and Shuo Xu
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 869–895, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-869-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-869-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites are now producing multiple global land surface temperature (LST) products; however, they suffer from data gaps caused by cloud cover, seriously restricting the applications, and few products provide gap-free global hourly LST. We produced global hourly, 5 km, all-sky LST data from 2011 to 2021 using geostationary and polar-orbiting satellite data. Based on the assessment, it has high accuracy and can be used to estimate evapotranspiration, drought, etc.
Andrew F. Feldman, Zhen Zhang, Yasuko Yoshida, Abhishek Chatterjee, and Benjamin Poulter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 1545–1563, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1545-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1545-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the conditions under which satellite-retrieved column carbon dioxide concentrations directly hold information about surface carbon dioxide fluxes, without the use of inversion models. We show that OCO-2 column carbon dioxide retrievals, available at 1–3 month latency, can be used to directly detect and roughly estimate extreme biospheric CO2 fluxes. As such, these OCO-2 retrievals have value for rapidly monitoring extreme conditions in the terrestrial biosphere.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Brendan Byrne, Junjie Liu, Yonghong Yi, Abhishek Chatterjee, Sourish Basu, Rui Cheng, Russell Doughty, Frédéric Chevallier, Kevin W. Bowman, Nicholas C. Parazoo, David Crisp, Xing Li, Jingfeng Xiao, Stephen Sitch, Bertrand Guenet, Feng Deng, Matthew S. Johnson, Sajeev Philip, Patrick C. McGuire, and Charles E. Miller
Biogeosciences, 19, 4779–4799, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4779-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4779-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Plants draw CO2 from the atmosphere during the growing season, while respiration releases CO2 to the atmosphere throughout the year, driving seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 that can be observed by satellites, such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2). Using OCO-2 XCO2 data and space-based constraints on plant growth, we show that permafrost-rich northeast Eurasia has a strong seasonal release of CO2 during the autumn, hinting at an unexpectedly large respiration signal from soils.
Daniel J. Jacob, Daniel J. Varon, Daniel H. Cusworth, Philip E. Dennison, Christian Frankenberg, Ritesh Gautam, Luis Guanter, John Kelley, Jason McKeever, Lesley E. Ott, Benjamin Poulter, Zhen Qu, Andrew K. Thorpe, John R. Worden, and Riley M. Duren
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9617–9646, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9617-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9617-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We review the capability of satellite observations of atmospheric methane to quantify methane emissions on all scales. We cover retrieval methods, precision requirements, inverse methods for inferring emissions, source detection thresholds, and observations of system completeness. We show that current instruments already enable quantification of regional and national emissions including contributions from large point sources. Coverage and resolution will increase significantly in coming years.
Colm Sweeney, Abhishek Chatterjee, Sonja Wolter, Kathryn McKain, Robert Bogue, Stephen Conley, Tim Newberger, Lei Hu, Lesley Ott, Benjamin Poulter, Luke Schiferl, Brad Weir, Zhen Zhang, and Charles E. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6347–6364, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6347-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6347-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic Carbon Atmospheric Profiles (Arctic-CAP) project demonstrates the utility of aircraft profiles for independent evaluation of model-derived emissions and uptake of atmospheric CO2, CH4, and CO from land and ocean. Comparison with the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) modeling system suggests that fluxes of CO2 are very consistent with observations, while those of CH4 have some regional and seasonal biases, and that CO comparison is complicated by transport errors.
M. Hosseini, I. Becker-Reshef, R. Sahajpal, P. Lafluf, G. Leale, E. Puricelli, S. Skakun, and H. McNairn
ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., V-3-2022, 405–410, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-V-3-2022-405-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-V-3-2022-405-2022, 2022
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.
Thomas E. Taylor, Christopher W. O'Dell, David Crisp, Akhiko Kuze, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Paul O. Wennberg, Abhishek Chatterjee, Michael Gunson, Annmarie Eldering, Brendan Fisher, Matthäus Kiel, Robert R. Nelson, Aronne Merrelli, Greg Osterman, Frédéric Chevallier, Paul I. Palmer, Liang Feng, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Manvendra K. Dubey, Dietrich G. Feist, Omaira E. García, David W. T. Griffith, Frank Hase, Laura T. Iraci, Rigel Kivi, Cheng Liu, Martine De Mazière, Isamu Morino, Justus Notholt, Young-Suk Oh, Hirofumi Ohyama, David F. Pollard, Markus Rettinger, Matthias Schneider, Coleen M. Roehl, Mahesh Kumar Sha, Kei Shiomi, Kimberly Strong, Ralf Sussmann, Yao Té, Voltaire A. Velazco, Mihalis Vrekoussis, Thorsten Warneke, and Debra Wunch
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 325–360, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-325-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-325-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We provide an analysis of an 11-year record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations derived using an optimal estimation retrieval algorithm on measurements made by the GOSAT satellite. The new product (version 9) shows improvement over the previous version (v7.3) as evaluated against independent estimates of CO2 from ground-based sensors and atmospheric inversion systems. We also compare the new GOSAT CO2 values to collocated estimates from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2.
Louise Chini, George Hurtt, Ritvik Sahajpal, Steve Frolking, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Stephen Sitch, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Lei Ma, Lesley Ott, Julia Pongratz, and Benjamin Poulter
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4175–4189, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon emissions from land-use change are a large and uncertain component of the global carbon cycle. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 (LUH2) dataset was developed as an input to carbon and climate simulations and has been updated annually for the Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2 updates and describe the 2019 version which used new cropland and grazing land data inputs for the globally important region of Brazil.
Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Louise Chini, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Felix Havermann, George C. Hurtt, Tammas Loughran, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tobias Nützel, Wolfgang A. Obermeier, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 763–782, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-763-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-763-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we model the relative importance of several contributors to the land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) flux based on a LULCC dataset including uncertainty estimates. The uncertainty of LULCC is as relevant as applying wood harvest and gross transitions for the cumulative LULCC flux over the industrial period. However, LULCC uncertainty matters less than the other two factors for the LULCC flux in 2014; historical LULCC uncertainty is negligible for estimates of future scenarios.
Brad Weir, Lesley E. Ott, George J. Collatz, Stephan R. Kawa, Benjamin Poulter, Abhishek Chatterjee, Tomohiro Oda, and Steven Pawson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9609–9628, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9609-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9609-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a collection of carbon surface fluxes, the Low-order Flux Inversion (LoFI), derived from satellite observations of the Earth's surface and calibrated to match long-term inventories and atmospheric and oceanic records. Simulations using LoFI reproduce background atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements with comparable skill to the leading surface flux products. Available both retrospectively and as a forecast, LoFI enables the study of the carbon cycle as it occurs.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
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.
George C. Hurtt, Louise Chini, Ritvik Sahajpal, Steve Frolking, Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Katherine Calvin, Jonathan C. Doelman, Justin Fisk, Shinichiro Fujimori, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Tomoko Hasegawa, Peter Havlik, Andreas Heinimann, Florian Humpenöder, Johan Jungclaus, Jed O. Kaplan, Jennifer Kennedy, Tamás Krisztin, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Lei Ma, Ole Mertz, Julia Pongratz, Alexander Popp, Benjamin Poulter, Keywan Riahi, Elena Shevliakova, Elke Stehfest, Peter Thornton, Francesco N. Tubiello, Detlef P. van Vuuren, and Xin Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5425–5464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
To estimate the effects of human land use activities on the carbon–climate system, a new set of global gridded land use forcing datasets was developed to link historical land use data to eight future scenarios in a standard format required by climate models. This new generation of land use harmonization (LUH2) includes updated inputs, higher spatial resolution, more detailed land use transitions, and the addition of important agricultural management layers; it will be used for CMIP6 simulations.
Cited articles
Abramowitz, G.: Towards a public, standardized, diagnostic benchmarking system for land surface models, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 819–827, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-819-2012, 2012.
Albani, M., Medvigy, D., Hurtt, G. C., and Moorcroft, P. R.: The
contributions of land-use change, CO2 fertilization, and climate variability
to the Eastern US carbon sink, Global Change Biology, 12, 2370–2390,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01254.x, 2006.
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Kidston, M., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Cox, P.,
Jones, C., Jung, M., Myneni, R., and Zhu, Z.: Evaluating the land and ocean
components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models, J. Climate, 26,
6801–6843, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00417.1, 2013.
Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E., and Berry, J. A.: A model predicting stomatal
conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under
different environmental conditions, in: Progress in photosynthesis research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0519-6_48,
Springer, 221–224, 1987.
Beer, C., Reichstein, M., Tomelleri, E., Ciais, P., Jung, M., Carvalhais,
N., Rödenbeck, C., Arain, M. A., Baldocchi, D., Bonan, G. B., Bondeau,
A., Cescatti, A., Lasslop, G., Lindroth, A., Lomas, M., Luyssaert, S.,
Margolis, H., Oleson, K. W., Roupsard, O., Veenendaal, E., Viovy, N.,
Williams, C., Woodward, F. I., and Papale, D.: Terrestrial Gross Carbon
Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate, Science,
329, 834, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184984, 2010.
Bernacchi, C. J., Singsaas, E. L., Pimentel Jr., C. A. R. P., and Long, S.
P.: Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited
photosynthesis, Plant Cell Environ., 24, 253–259,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2001.00668.x, 2001.
Bonan, G. B.: Comparison of two land surface process models using prescribed
forcings, J. Geographys. Res.-Atmos., 99, 25803–25818, https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD02188, 1994.
Bonan, G. B., Patton, E. G., Finnigan, J. J., Baldocchi, D. D., and Harman,
I. N.: Moving beyond the incorrect but useful paradigm: reevaluating
big-leaf and multilayer plant canopies to model biosphere-atmosphere fluxes
– a review, Agric. Forest Meteorol., 306, 108435,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108435, 2021.
Botkin, D. B., Janak, J. F., and Wallis, J. R.: Some ecological consequences
of a computer model of forest growth, J. Ecol., 60, 849–872,
1972.
Brovkin, V., Sitch, S., Von Bloh, W., Claussen, M., Bauer, E., and Cramer,
W.: Role of land cover changes for atmospheric CO2 increase and climate
change during the last 150 years, Global Change Biol., 10, 1253–1266,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00812.x, 2004.
Canadell, J. G., Kirschbaum, M. U. F., Kurz, W. A., Sanz, M.-J.,
Schlamadinger, B., and Yamagata, Y.: Factoring out natural and indirect human
effects on terrestrial carbon sources and sinks, Environ. Sci.
Policy, 10, 370–384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.009, 2007.
Chevallier, F., Fisher, M., Peylin, P., Serrar, S., Bousquet, P., Bréon, F.-M., Chédin, A., and Ciais, P.: Inferring CO2 sources and sinks from satellite observations: Method and application to TOVS data, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D24309, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006390, 2005.
Chini, L., Hurtt, G., Sahajpal, R., Frolking, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., Sitch, S., Ganzenmüller, R., Ma, L., Ott, L., Pongratz, J., and Poulter, B.: Land-use harmonization datasets for annual global carbon budgets, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4175–4189, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, 2021.
Ciais, P., Dolman, A. J., Bombelli, A., Duren, R., Peregon, A., Rayner, P. J., Miller, C., Gobron, N., Kinderman, G., Marland, G., Gruber, N., Chevallier, F., Andres, R. J., Balsamo, G., Bopp, L., Bréon, F.-M., Broquet, G., Dargaville, R., Battin, T. J., Borges, A., Bovensmann, H., Buchwitz, M., Butler, J., Canadell, J. G., Cook, R. B., DeFries, R., Engelen, R., Gurney, K. R., Heinze, C., Heimann, M., Held, A., Henry, M., Law, B., Luyssaert, S., Miller, J., Moriyama, T., Moulin, C., Myneni, R. B., Nussli, C., Obersteiner, M., Ojima, D., Pan, Y., Paris, J.-D., Piao, S. L., Poulter, B., Plummer, S., Quegan, S., Raymond, P., Reichstein, M., Rivier, L., Sabine, C., Schimel, D., Tarasova, O., Valentini, R., Wang, R., van der Werf, G., Wickland, D., Williams, M., and Zehner, C.: Current systematic carbon-cycle observations and the need for implementing a policy-relevant carbon observing system, Biogeosciences, 11, 3547–3602, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3547-2014, 2014a.
Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J.,
Chhabra, A., DeFries, R., Galloway, J., and Heimann, M.: Carbon and other
biogeochemical cycles, in Climate change 2013: the physical science basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 465–570, Cambridge
University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.015, 2014b.
Collatz, G. J., Ball, J. T., Grivet, C., and Berry, J. A.: Physiological and
environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and
transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer, Agric. Forest Meteorol., 54, 107–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(91)90002-8,
1991.
Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M., and Berry, J. A.: Coupled
photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model for leaves of C4 plants, Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 19,
519–538, https://doi.org/10.1071/PP9920519, 1992.
Collier, N., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., Koven, C.
D., Riley, W. J., Mu, M., and Randerson, J. T.: The International Land Model
Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, Theory, and Implementation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10,
2731–2754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001354, 2018.
Cramer, W., Bondeau, A., Woodward, F. I., Prentice, I. C., Betts, R. A.,
Brovkin, V., Cox, P. M., Fisher, V., Foley, J. A., Friend, A. D., Kucharik,
C., Lomas, M. R., Ramankutty, N., Sitch, S., Smith, B., White, A., and
Young-Molling, C.: Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and
function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global
vegetation models, Global Change Biol., 7, 357–373,
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x, 2001.
Dickinson, R. E., Henderson-Sellers, A., and Kennedy, P. J.: Biosphere-atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) Version 1e as Coupled to the NCAR Community Climate Model (No. NCAR/TN-387+STR), University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, https://doi.org/10.5065/D67W6959, 1993.
Dubayah, R., Blair, J. B., Goetz, S., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M., Healey, S.,
Hofton, M., Hurtt, G., Kellner, J., Luthcke, S., Armston, J., Tang, H.,
Duncanson, L., Hancock, S., Jantz, P., Marselis, S., Patterson, P. L., Qi,
W., and Silva, C.: The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation:
High-resolution laser ranging of the Earth's forests and topography, Sci. Remote Sens., 1, 100002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002,
2020a.
Dubayah, R., Hofton, M., Blair, J., Armston, J., Tang, H., and Luthcke, S.:
GEDI L2A Elevation and Height Metrics Data Global Footprint Level V001, NASA Earth Data,
https://doi.org/10.5067/GEDI/GEDI02_A.001, 2020b.
Dubayah, R., Tang, H., Armston, J., Luthcke, S., Hofton, M., and Blair, J.:
GEDI L2B Canopy Cover and Vertical Profile Metrics Data Global Footprint
Level V001, NASA Earth Data, https://doi.org/10.5067/GEDI/GEDI02_B.001,
2020c.
Erb, K.-H., Kastner, T., Luyssaert, S., Houghton, R. A., Kuemmerle, T.,
Olofsson, P., and Haberl, H.: Bias in the attribution of forest carbon sinks,
Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 854–856,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2004, 2013.
ESA: Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2, Tech. Rep.,
http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf (last access: 1 March 2022), 2017.
Eyring, V., Gleckler, P. J., Heinze, C., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., Balaji, V., Guilyardi, E., Joussaume, S., Kindermann, S., Lawrence, B. N., Meehl, G. A., Righi, M., and Williams, D. N.: Towards improved and more routine Earth system model evaluation in CMIP, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 813–830, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, 2016.
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G.,
Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M.,
Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G.,
Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D.,
Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.:
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019.
Farjon, A. and Filer, D.: An Atlas of the World's Conifers: An Analysis of
their Distribution, Biogeography, Diversity and Conservation Status, Brill,
https://brill.com/view/title/20587 (last access: 22 December 2020), 2013.
Farquhar, G. D. and Sharkey, T. D.: Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.,
33, 317–345, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.33.060182.001533, 1982.
Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S., and Berry, J. A.: A biochemical model of
photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species, Planta, 149,
78–90, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386231, 1980.
Fisher, R. A., Muszala, S., Verteinstein, M., Lawrence, P., Xu, C., McDowell, N. G., Knox, R. G., Koven, C., Holm, J., Rogers, B. M., Spessa, A., Lawrence, D., and Bonan, G.: Taking off the training wheels: the properties of a dynamic vegetation model without climate envelopes, CLM4.5(ED), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3593–3619, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3593-2015, 2015.
Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Anderegg, W. R. L., Christoffersen, B. O.,
Dietze, M. C., Farrior, C. E., Holm, J. A., Hurtt, G. C., Knox, R. G.,
Lawrence, P. J., Lichstein, J. W., Longo, M., Matheny, A. M., Medvigy, D.,
Muller-Landau, H. C., Powell, T. L., Serbin, S. P., Sato, H., Shuman, J. K.,
Smith, B., Trugman, A. T., Viskari, T., Verbeeck, H., Weng, E., Xu, C., Xu,
X., Zhang, T., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Vegetation demographics in Earth System
Models: A review of progress and priorities, Global Change Biol., 24,
35–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13910, 2018.
Fisk, J. P.: Net effects of disturbance: Spatial, temporal, and soci-etal
dimensions of forest disturbance and recovery on terrestrial carbon
balance, PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 2015.
Fisk, J. P., Hurtt, G. C., Chambers, J. Q., Zeng, H., Dolan, K. A., and
Negrón-Juárez, R. I.: The impacts of tropical cyclones on the net
carbon balance of eastern US forests (1851–2000), Environ. Res. Lett.,
8, 045017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045017, 2013.
Flanagan, S. A., Hurtt, G. C., Fisk, J. P., Sahajpal, R., Zhao, M., Dubayah,
R., Hansen, M. C., Sullivan, J. H., and Collatz, G. J.: Potential Transient
Response of Terrestrial Vegetation and Carbon in Northern North America from
Climate Change, Climate, 7, 113, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7090113,
2019.
Foley, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., Levis, S., Pollard, D.,
Sitch, S., and Haxeltine, A.: An integrated biosphere model of land surface
processes, terrestrial carbon balance, and vegetation dynamics, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 10,
603–628, https://doi.org/10.1029/96GB02692, 1996.
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs,
L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan,
K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A.,
da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M.,
Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective
Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate,
30, 5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017.
Ghimire, B., Riley, W. J., Koven, C. D., Mu, M., and Randerson, J. T.:
Representing leaf and root physiological traits in CLM improves global
carbon and nitrogen cycling predictions, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8, 598–613,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000538, 2016.
Guanter, L., Zhang, Y., Jung, M., Joiner, J., Voigt, M., Berry, J. A.,
Frankenberg, C., Huete, A. R., Zarco-Tejada, P., Lee, J.-E., Moran, M. S.,
Ponce-Campos, G., Beer, C., Camps-Valls, G., Buchmann, N., Gianelle, D.,
Klumpp, K., Cescatti, A., Baker, J. M., and Griffis, T. J.: Global and
time-resolved monitoring of crop photosynthesis with chlorophyll
fluorescence, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, E1327–E1333,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320008111, 2014.
Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., and Pongratz, J.: Relevance of methodological
choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles, 29, 1230–1246,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004997, 2015.
Haxeltine, A. and Prentice, I. C.: BIOME3: An equilibrium terrestrial
biosphere model based on ecophysiological constraints, resource
availability, and competition among plant functional types, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 10, 693–709,
1996.
Hurtt, G. C., Moorcroft, P. R., Pacala, S. W., and Levin, S. A.: Terrestrial
models and global change: challenges for the future, Global Change Biol.,
4, 581–590, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.t01-1-00203.x,
1998.
Hurtt, G. C., Pacala, S. W., Moorcroft, P. R., Caspersen, J., Shevliakova,
E., Houghton, R. A., and Moore, B.: Projecting the future of the U.S. carbon
sink, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 1389–1394, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.012249999, 2002.
Hurtt, G. C., Dubayah, R., Drake, J., Moorcroft, P. R., Pacala, S. W.,
Blair, J. B., and Fearon, M. G.: Beyond Potential Vegetation: Combining Lidar
Data and a Height-Structured Model for Carbon Studies, Ecol.
Appl., 14, 873–883, https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5317, 2004.
Hurtt, G. C., Fisk, J., Thomas, R. Q., Dubayah, R., Moorcroft, P. R., and
Shugart, H. H.: Linking models and data on vegetation structure, J.
Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 115, G00E10,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG000937, 2010.
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L. P., Frolking, S., Betts, R., Feddema, J., Fischer,
G., Fisk, J., Hibbard, K., Houghton, R., and Janetos, A.: Harmonization of
land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded
annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands,
Clim. Change, 109, 117–161, 2011.
Hurtt, G. C., Thomas, R. Q., Fisk, J. P., Dubayah, R. O., and Sheldon, S. L.:
The Impact of Fine-Scale Disturbances on the Predictability of Vegetation
Dynamics and Carbon Flux, PLOS ONE, 11, e0152883,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152883, 2016.
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L., Sahajpal, R., Frolking, S., Bodirsky, B. L., Calvin,
K., Doelman, J., Fisk, J., Fujimori, S., Goldewijk, K. K., Hasegawa, T.,
Havlik, P., Heinimann, A., Humpenöder, F., Jungclaus, J., Kaplan, J.,
Krisztin, T., Lawrence, D., Lawrence, P., Mertz, O., Pongratz, J., Popp, A.,
Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E., Stehfest, E., Thornton, P., van Vuuren, D., and
Zhang, X.: input4MIPs.CMIP6.CMIP.UofMD, Earth System Grid Federation,
https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.10454, 2019a.
Hurtt, G. C., Zhao, M., Sahajpal, R., Armstrong, A., Birdsey, R., Campbell,
E., Dolan, K., Dubayah, R., Fisk, J. P., Flanagan, S., Huang, C., Huang, W.,
Johnson, K., Lamb, R., Ma, L., Marks, R., O'Leary, D., O'Neil-Dunne, J.,
Swatantran, A., and Tang, H.: Beyond MRV: high-resolution forest carbon
modeling for climate mitigation planning over Maryland, USA, Environ. Res.
Lett., 14, 045013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0bbe, 2019b.
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L., Sahajpal, R., Frolking, S., Bodirsky, B. L., Calvin, K., Doelman, J. C., Fisk, J., Fujimori, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Heinimann, A., Humpenöder, F., Jungclaus, J., Kaplan, J. O., Kennedy, J., Krisztin, T., Lawrence, D., Lawrence, P., Ma, L., Mertz, O., Pongratz, J., Popp, A., Poulter, B., Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E., Stehfest, E., Thornton, P., Tubiello, F. N., van Vuuren, D. P., and Zhang, X.: Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5425–5464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, 2020.
Ito, A., Hajima, T., Lawrence, D. M., Brovkin, V., Delire, C., Guenet, B.,
Jones, C. D., Malyshev, S., Materia, S., McDermid, S. P., Peano, D.,
Pongratz, J., Robertson, E., Shevliakova, E., Vuichard, N., Wårlind, D.,
Wiltshire, A., and Ziehn, T.: Soil carbon sequestration simulated in
CMIP6-LUMIP models: implications for climatic mitigation, Environ. Res.
Lett., 15, 124061, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc912, 2020.
Joiner, J., Yoshida, Y., Zhang, Y., Duveiller, G., Jung, M., Lyapustin, A.,
Wang, Y., and Tucker, C. J.: Estimation of Terrestrial Global Gross Primary
Production (GPP) with Satellite Data-Driven Models and Eddy Covariance Flux
Data, Remote Sens., 10, 1346, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091346, 2018.
Jung, M., Schwalm, C., Migliavacca, M., Walther, S., Camps-Valls, G., Koirala, S., Anthoni, P., Besnard, S., Bodesheim, P., Carvalhais, N., Chevallier, F., Gans, F., Goll, D. S., Haverd, V., Köhler, P., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Liu, J., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nelson, J. A., O'Sullivan, M., Pallandt, M., Papale, D., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Rödenbeck, C., Sitch, S., Tramontana, G., Walker, A., Weber, U., and Reichstein, M.: Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 1343–1365, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020, 2020.
Kattge, J. and Knorr, W.: Temperature acclimation in a biochemical model of
photosynthesis: a reanalysis of data from 36 species, Plant Cell
Environ., 30, 1176–1190,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01690.x, 2007.
Kattge, J., Ogle, K., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Madin,
J., Nadrowski, K., Nöllert, S., Sartor, K., and Wirth, C.: A generic
structure for plant trait databases, Methods Ecol. Evol., 2, 202–213,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00067.x, 2011.
Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I. C.,
Leadley, P., Tautenhahn, S., Werner, G. D., Aakala, T., and Abedi, M.: TRY
plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access, Global Change Biol., 26, 119–188, 2020.
Keeling, R. F.: Recording Earth's Vital Signs, Science, 319, 1771,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156761, 2008.
Keenan, T. F. and Williams, C. A.: The Terrestrial Carbon Sink, Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour., 43, 219–243,
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030204, 2018.
Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W., Swenson, S. C.,
Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., van Kampenhout, L., and Kennedy, D.:
The Community Land Model version 5: Description of new features,
benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4245–4287, 2019.
Lee, J.-E., Frankenberg, C., van der Tol, C., Berry, J. A., Guanter, L.,
Boyce, C. K., Fisher, J. B., Morrow, E., Worden, J. R., Asefi, S., Badgley,
G., and Saatchi, S.: Forest productivity and water stress in Amazonia:
observations from GOSAT chlorophyll fluorescence, P. Roy.
Soc. B, 280, 20130171,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0171, 2013.
Lieth, H.: Modeling the primary productivity of the world, in: Primary
productivity of the biosphere, edited by: Lieth, H. and Whittaker, R. H., Springer, 237–263, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-80913-2, 1975.
Longo, M., Knox, R. G., Medvigy, D. M., Levine, N. M., Dietze, M. C., Kim, Y., Swann, A. L. S., Zhang, K., Rollinson, C. R., Bras, R. L., Wofsy, S. C., and Moorcroft, P. R.: The biophysics, ecology, and biogeochemistry of functionally diverse, vertically and horizontally heterogeneous ecosystems: the Ecosystem Demography model, version 2.2 – Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4309–4346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4309-2019, 2019.
Luo, Y. Q., Randerson, J. T., Abramowitz, G., Bacour, C., Blyth, E., Carvalhais, N., Ciais, P., Dalmonech, D., Fisher, J. B., Fisher, R., Friedlingstein, P., Hibbard, K., Hoffman, F., Huntzinger, D., Jones, C. D., Koven, C., Lawrence, D., Li, D. J., Mahecha, M., Niu, S. L., Norby, R., Piao, S. L., Qi, X., Peylin, P., Prentice, I. C., Riley, W., Reichstein, M., Schwalm, C., Wang, Y. P., Xia, J. Y., Zaehle, S., and Zhou, X. H.: A framework for benchmarking land models, Biogeosciences, 9, 3857–3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-3857-2012, 2012.
Ma, L., Hurtt, G., Ott, L., Sahajpal, R., Fisk, J., Flanagan, S., Poulter,
B., Liang, S., Sullivan, J., and Dubayah, R.: Global Ecosystem Demography
Model (ED-global v1.0): Development, Calibration and Evaluation for NASA's
Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI), Earth and Space Science Open
Archive, https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10505486.1, 2020.
Ma, L., Hurtt, G., Ott, L., Sahajpal, R., Fisk, J., Lamb, R., Tang, H., Flanagan, S., Chini, L., Chatterjee, A., and Sullivan, J.: Global evaluation of the Ecosystem Demography model (ED v3.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5236771, 2021a.
Ma, L., Hurtt, G., Tang, H., Lamb, R. L., Campbell, E., Dubayah, R. O., Guy,
M., Huang, W., Lister, A., and Lu, J.: High-resolution forest carbon modeling
for climate mitigation planning over the RGGI region, USA, Environ.
Res. Lett., 16, 045014, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe4f4, 2021b.
Markus, T., Neumann, T., Martino, A., Abdalati, W., Brunt, K., Csatho, B.,
Farrell, S., Fricker, H., Gardner, A., Harding, D., Jasinski, M., Kwok, R.,
Magruder, L., Lubin, D., Luthcke, S., Morison, J., Nelson, R.,
Neuenschwander, A., Palm, S., Popescu, S., Shum, C., Schutz, B. E., Smith,
B., Yang, Y., and Zwally, J.: The Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2
(ICESat-2): Science requirements, concept, and implementation, Remote
Sens. Environ., 190, 260–273,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.029, 2017.
Massad, R.-S., Tuzet, A., and Bethenod, O.: The effect of temperature on
C4-type leaf photosynthesis parameters, Plant Cell Environ., 30,
1191–1204, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01691.x, 2007.
Massoud, E. C., Xu, C., Fisher, R. A., Knox, R. G., Walker, A. P., Serbin, S. P., Christoffersen, B. O., Holm, J. A., Kueppers, L. M., Ricciuto, D. M., Wei, L., Johnson, D. J., Chambers, J. Q., Koven, C. D., McDowell, N. G., and Vrugt, J. A.: Identification of key parameters controlling demographically structured vegetation dynamics in a land surface model: CLM4.5(FATES), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4133–4164, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4133-2019, 2019.
Medvigy, D.: The State of the Regional Carbon Cycle: Results from a
Constrained Coupled Ecosystem-atmosphere Model, PhD thesis, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
644 pp., 2006.
Medvigy, D., Wofsy, S. C., Munger, J. W., Hollinger, D. Y., and Moorcroft, P.
R.: Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and
time: Ecosystem Demography model version 2, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 114, G01002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000812, 2009.
Mercado, L. M., Bellouin, N., Sitch, S., Boucher, O., Huntingford, C., Wild,
M., and Cox, P. M.: Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land
carbon sink, Nature, 458, 1014–1017, 2009.
Monteith, J.: Evaporation and environment, Symposia of the Society for
Experimental Biology, 19, 205–234, 1965.
Montzka, C., Herbst, M., Weihermüller, L., Verhoef, A., and Vereecken, H.: A global data set of soil hydraulic properties and sub-grid variability of soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity curves, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 529–543, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-529-2017, 2017.
Moorcroft, P. R., Hurtt, G. C., and Pacala, S. W.: A Method for Scaling
Vegetation Dynamics: The Ecosystem Demography Model, Ecological
Monographs, 71, 557–586,
https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2001)071[0557:AMFSVD]2.0.CO;2, 2001.
Morton, D. C., Nagol, J., Carabajal, C. C., Rosette, J., Palace, M., Cook,
B. D., Vermote, E. F., Harding, D. J., and North, P. R. J.: Amazon forests
maintain consistent canopy structure and greenness during the dry season, Nature,
506, 221–224, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13006, 2014.
Mu, Q., Zhao, M., and Running, S. W.: Improvements to a MODIS global
terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 1781–1800, 2011.
Murray-Tortarolo, G., Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Piao, S.,
Zhu, Z., Poulter, B., Zaehle, S., Ahlström, A., Lomas, M., Levis, S.,
Viovy, N., and Zeng, N.: Evaluation of Land Surface Models in Reproducing
Satellite-Derived LAI over the High-Latitude Northern Hemisphere. Part I:
Uncoupled DGVMs, Remote Sens., 5, 4819–4838,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5104819, 2013.
Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y., and Park, T.: MCD15A3H MODIS/Terra+Aqua Leaf Area
Index/FPAR 4-day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006, NASA Earth Data,
https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD15A3H.006, 2015.
Neilson, R. P.: A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation
distribution and water balance, Ecol. Appl., 5, 362–385, 1995.
Neuenschwander, A. L., Popescu, S. C., Nelson, R. F., Harding, D., Pitts, K.
L., and Robbins, J.: ATLAS/ICESat-2 L3A Land and Vegetation Height, version
3, NSIDC, https://doi.org/10.5067/ATLAS/ATL08.003, 2020.
Ott, L., Hurtt, G. C., Randerson, J. T., Chatterjee, A., Chen, Y., Chini, L.
P., Davis, S. J., Hubacek, K., Lee, E., Ma, L., Poulter, B., Rousseaux, C.
S., Sun, L., Woodard, D., and Zeng, F.: Toward integrated seasonal
predictions of land and ocean carbon flux: lessons from the 2015–16 El Nino,
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 51,
2018AGUFM.B51E1990O,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AGUFM.B51E1990O (last access: 24 November 2020), 2018.
Pacala, S. W., Canham, C. D., Saponara, J., Silander Jr, J. A., Kobe, R. K.,
and Ribbens, E.: Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation,
error analysis and dynamics, Ecol. Monogr., 66, 1–43, 1996.
Parton, W. J.: The CENTURY model, in: Evaluation of soil organic matter
models, Springer, 283–291, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61094-3_23, 1996.
Peters, W., Jacobson, A. R., Sweeney, C., Andrews, A. E., Conway, T. J.,
Masarie, K., Miller, J. B., Bruhwiler, L. M. P., Pétron, G., Hirsch, A.
I., Worthy, D. E. J., van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Wennberg, P.
O., Krol, M. C., and Tans, P. P.: An atmospheric perspective on North
American carbon dioxide exchange: CarbonTracker, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
104, 18925, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708986104, 2007.
Peylin, P., Law, R. M., Gurney, K. R., Chevallier, F., Jacobson, A. R., Maki, T., Niwa, Y., Patra, P. K., Peters, W., Rayner, P. J., Rödenbeck, C., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., and Zhang, X.: Global atmospheric carbon budget: results from an ensemble of atmospheric CO2 inversions, Biogeosciences, 10, 6699–6720, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-6699-2013, 2013.
Pielke Sr., R. A., Pitman, A., Niyogi, D., Mahmood, R., McAlpine, C.,
Hossain, F., Goldewijk, K. K., Nair, U., Betts, R., Fall, S., Reichstein,
M., Kabat, P., and de Noblet, N.: Land use/land cover changes and climate:
modeling analysis and observational evidence, WIREs Climate Change, 2,
828–850, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.144, 2011.
Potter, C. S., Randerson, J. T., Field, C. B., Matson, P. A., Vitousek, P.
M., Mooney, H. A., and Klooster, S. A.: Terrestrial ecosystem production: A
process model based on global satellite and surface data, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 7, 811–841,
https://doi.org/10.1029/93GB02725, 1993.
Poulter, B., MacBean, N., Hartley, A., Khlystova, I., Arino, O., Betts, R., Bontemps, S., Boettcher, M., Brockmann, C., Defourny, P., Hagemann, S., Herold, M., Kirches, G., Lamarche, C., Lederer, D., Ottlé, C., Peters, M., and Peylin, P.: Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency's Land Cover Climate Change Initiative, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2315–2328, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2315-2015, 2015.
Prentice, I. C. and Cowling, S. A.: Dynamic global vegetation models,
Encyclopedia of biodiversity, 2nd edn., 670–689,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00412-3, 2013.
Prentice, I. C., Cramer, W., Harrison, S. P., Leemans, R., Monserud, R. A.,
and Solomon, A. M.: Special paper: a global biome model based on plant
physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate, Biogeography, 19, 117–134, 1992.
Prentice, I. C., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Harrison, S. P., Hickler, T.,
Lucht, W., Sitch, S., Smith, B., and Sykes, M. T.: Dynamic Global Vegetation
Modeling: Quantifying Terrestrial Ecosystem Responses to Large-Scale
Environmental Change, in: Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World, edited
by: Canadell, J. G., Pataki, D. E., and Pitelka, L. F., Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 175–192, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32730-1_15, 2007.
Raich, J. W., Rastetter, E. B., Melillo, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W.,
Steudler, P. A., Peterson, B. J., Grace, A. L., Moore, B., and Vorosmarty,
C. J.: Potential Net Primary Productivity in South America: Application of a
Global Model, Ecol. Appl., 1, 399–429, https://doi.org/10.2307/1941899, 1991.
Randerson, J. T., Hoffman, F. M., Thornton, P. E., Mahowald, N. M., Lindsay,
K., Lee, Y.-H., Nevison, C. D., Doney, S. C., Bonan, G., and Stöckli,
R.: Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled
climate–carbon models, 15, 2462–2484, 2009.
Randerson, J., Van Der Werf, G., Giglio, L., Collatz, G., and Kasibhatla, P.:
Global Fire Emissions Database, Version 4.1 (GFEDv4), ORNL DAAC, https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1293, 2015.
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., and Ellsworth, D. S.: From tropics to tundra:
Global convergence in plant functioning, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94,
13730, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.25.13730, 1997.
Restrepo-Coupe, N., Levine, N. M., Christoffersen, B. O., Albert, L. P., Wu,
J., Costa, M. H., Galbraith, D., Imbuzeiro, H., Martins, G., da Araujo, A.
C., Malhi, Y. S., Zeng, X., Moorcroft, P., and Saleska, S. R.: Do dynamic
global vegetation models capture the seasonality of carbon fluxes in the
Amazon basin? A data-model intercomparison, Global Change Biol., 23, 191–208,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13442, 2017.
Rödenbeck, C., Le Quéré, C., Heimann, M., and Keeling, R. F.:
Interannual variability in oceanic biogeochemical processes inferred by
inversion of atmospheric O2/N2 and CO2 data, Tellus B, 60, 685–705,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2008.00375.x, 2008.
Saleska, S. R., Wu, J., Guan, K., Araujo, A. C., Huete, A., Nobre, A. D.,
and Restrepo-Coupe, N.: Dry-season greening of Amazon forests, Nature, 531, E4–E5,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16457, 2016.
Santoro, M., Cartus, O., Mermoz, S., Bouvet, A., Le Toan, T., Carvalhais,
N., Rozendaal, D., Herold, M., Avitabile, V., Quegan, S., Carreiras, J.,
Rauste, Y., Balzter, H., Schmullius, C., and Seifert, F. M.: GlobBiomass –
global datasets of forest biomass, 174 data points, PANGAEA,
https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.894711, 2018.
Sato, H., Itoh, A., and Kohyama, T.: SEIB–DGVM: A new Dynamic Global
Vegetation Model using a spatially explicit individual-based approach, Ecol. Model., 200,
279–307, 2007.
Sellers, P. J., Mintz, Y., Sud, Y. C., and Dalcher, A.: A Simple Biosphere
Model (SIB) for Use within General Circulation Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 505–531,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1986)043<0505:ASBMFU>2.0.CO;2, 1986.
Shugart, H. H. and West, D.: Development of an Appalachian deciduous forest
succession model and its application to assessment of the impact of the
chestnut blight, J. Environ. Manag., 5, 161–179, 1977.
Shugart, H. H., Wang, B., Fischer, R., Ma, J., Fang, J., Yan, X., Huth, A.,
and Armstrong, A. H.: Gap models and their individual-based relatives in the
assessment of the consequences of global change, Environ. Res.
Lett., 13, 033001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaacc, 2018.
Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P. E., Lomas, M., Piao, S. L.,
Betts, R., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Prentice,
I. C., and Woodward, F. I.: Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle,
future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic
Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), Global Change Biol., 14, 2015–2039,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01626.x, 2008.
Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., and Sykes, M. T.: Representation of vegetation
dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two
contrasting approaches within European climate space, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10, 621–637, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.t01-1-00256.x, 2001.
Smith, B., Wårlind, D., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Leadley, P., Siltberg, J., and Zaehle, S.: Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model, Biogeosciences, 11, 2027–2054, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014, 2014.
Spafford, L. and MacDougall, A. H.: Validation of terrestrial biogeochemistry in CMIP6 Earth system models: a review, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5863–5889, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5863-2021, 2021.
Spawn, S. A., Sullivan, C. C., Lark, T. J., and Gibbs, H. K.: Harmonized
global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year
2010, Sci. Data, 7, 112, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4,
2020.
Tang, H. and Dubayah, R.: Light-driven growth in Amazon evergreen forests
explained by seasonal variations of vertical canopy structure, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114,
2640–2644, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616943114, 2017.
Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M., Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D.: Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations, Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013, 2013.
van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Velde, I. R., van der Veen, E., Tsuruta, A., Stanislawska, K., Babenhauserheide, A., Zhang, H. F., Liu, Y., He, W., Chen, H., Masarie, K. A., Krol, M. C., and Peters, W.: The CarbonTracker Data Assimilation Shell (CTDAS) v1.0: implementation and global carbon balance 2001–2015, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2785–2800, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2785-2017, 2017.
Verger, A., Baret, F., and Weiss, M.: Near Real-Time Vegetation Monitoring at
Global Scale, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl., 7, 3473–3481,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2328632, 2014.
von Caemmerer, S.: Biochemical models of leaf photosynthesis, Csiro
publishing, https://doi.org/10.1071/9780643103405, 2000.
von Caemmerer, S. and Furbank, R. T.: Modeling C4 photosynthesis, C4 plant
biology, edited by: Sage, R. F. and Monson, R. K., 173–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-614440-6.X5000-9, 1999.
von Caemmerer, S., Farquhar, G., and Berry, J.: Biochemical Model of C3
Photosynthesis, in: Photosynthesis in silico: Understanding Complexity from
Molecules to Ecosystems, edited by: Laisk, A., Nedbal, L., and Govindjee, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,
209–230,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9237-4_9, 2009.
Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T.
J. C., Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and Bairlein, F.: Ecological
responses to recent climate change, Nature, 416, 389–395,
https://doi.org/10.1038/416389a, 2002.
Weng, E. S., Malyshev, S., Lichstein, J. W., Farrior, C. E., Dybzinski, R., Zhang, T., Shevliakova, E., and Pacala, S. W.: Scaling from individual trees to forests in an Earth system modeling framework using a mathematically tractable model of height-structured competition, Biogeosciences, 12, 2655–2694, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-2655-2015, 2015.
Wieder, W. R., Boehnert, J., Bonan, G. B., and Langseth, M.: Regridded
Harmonized World Soil Database v1.2, ORNL DAAC,
https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1247, 2014.
Yang, X., Tang, J., Mustard, J. F., Lee, J.-E., Rossini, M., Joiner, J.,
Munger, J. W., Kornfeld, A., and Richardson, A. D.: Solar-induced chlorophyll
fluorescence that correlates with canopy photosynthesis on diurnal and
seasonal scales in a temperate deciduous forest, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 42, 2977–2987, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063201, 2015.
Zhang, Y., Joiner, J., Alemohammad, S. H., Zhou, S., and Gentine, P.: A global spatially contiguous solar-induced fluorescence (CSIF) dataset using neural networks, Biogeosciences, 15, 5779–5800, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5779-2018, 2018.
Short summary
We present a global version of the Ecosystem Demography (ED) model which can track vegetation 3-D structure and scale up ecological processes from individual vegetation to ecosystem scale. Model evaluation against multiple benchmarking datasets demonstrated the model’s capability to simulate global vegetation dynamics across a range of temporal and spatial scales. With this version, ED has the potential to be linked with remote sensing observations to address key scientific questions.
We present a global version of the Ecosystem Demography (ED) model which can track vegetation...
