the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact of changes in climate and CO2 on the carbon-sequestration potential of vegetation under limited water availability using SEIB-DGVM version 3.02
- 1State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, Peoples R China
- 2State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, Peoples R China
- 3College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, Peoples R China
- 4Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, N-0316, Norway
- 5Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, 236-0001, Japan
- 6Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing, 210029, Peoples R China
- 1State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, Peoples R China
- 2State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, Peoples R China
- 3College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, Peoples R China
- 4Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, N-0316, Norway
- 5Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, 236-0001, Japan
- 6Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing, 210029, Peoples R China
Abstract. Documenting year-to-year variations in carbon-sequestration potential in terrestrial ecosystems is crucial for the determination of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, the magnitude, pattern and inner biomass partitioning of carbon-sequestration potential, and the effect of the changes in climate and CO2 on inner carbon stocks, remain poorly quantified. Herein, we use a spatially explicit individual based-dynamic global vegetation model to investigate the influences of the changes in climate and CO2 on the enhanced carbon-sequestration potential of vegetation. The modelling included a series of factorial simulations using the CRU dataset from 1916 to 2015. The results show that CO2 predominantly leads to a persistent and widespread increase in above-ground vegetation biomass carbon-stocks (AVBC) and below-ground vegetation biomass carbon-stocks (BVBC). Climate change appears to play a secondary role in carbon-sequestration potential. Importantly, with the mitigation of water stress, the magnitude of the above- and below-ground responses in vegetation carbon-stocks gradually increases, and the ratio between AVBC and BVBC increases to capture CO2 and sunlight. Changes in the pattern of vegetation carbon storage was linked to regional limitations in water, which directly weakens and indirectly regulates the response of potential vegetation carbon-stocks to a changing environment. Our findings differ from previous modelling evaluations of vegetation that ignored inner carbon dynamics and demonstrates that the long-term trend in increased vegetation biomass carbon-stocks is driven by CO2 fertilization and temperature effects that are controlled by water limitations.
Shanlin Tong et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-383', Juan Antonio Añel, 30 Dec 2021
Dear authors,
After checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our Code and Data Policy.
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code in seib-dgvm.com. However, this is not a suitable repository, and you must use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing. We provide some suggestions in our policy. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories.
In this way, before the Discussions stage is closed, you must reply to this comment with the link to the repository for the code and the corresponding DOI.
Also, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section and the DOI of the repository.
A similar thing happens with the reconstructed CO2 dataset, and it must be available in the same repository as the code. For the Ecosystem Model Data Intercomparison, MOD17A3 and MCD12C1 data, it would be good to have at least the final files used for your work in the repository.
Therefore, please, address these issues and reply as soon as possible and reply to this comment with the link to the repository containing the requested information. In this way, it will be available for the peer-review process, as it should be.Regards,
Dr Juan A. Añel
Geosc. Mod. Dev. Executive Editor
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Shanlin Tong, 31 Dec 2021
Dear Dr Juan A. Añel,
Thanks for your suggestions, I have upload the code of SEIB-DGVM V3.02 in the Zenodo. Meanwhile, the reconstructed CO2 dataset, EMDI, MOD17A3, and MCD12C1 data, which are the final files used in my work, are archived in the Zenodo.
The DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.5811832Regards,
Ph.D Tong Shanlin
Wuhan University
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Shanlin Tong, 31 Dec 2021
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-383', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2022
This paper reports a set of factorial simulations of global vegetation biomass responses to changes in atmospheric CO2, temperature, precipitation, and radiation based on a well-developed dynamic vegetation model, SEIB-DGVM. The purpose of this study is to “systematically determine the long-term variability of carbon-sequestration potential and understand its response mechanisms, and estimate trends in partitioning of potential biomass carbon-stocks of vegetation biomass”.
However, after reading through this paper a couple of times, I do not think these questions are answered. The authors should keep it in mind that these results are simulations from a model. One cannot just run the model and tell us what they are. The simulations must be correctly evaluated before taken as conclusions. A detailed analysis of simulation results, model formulation, and uncertainty evaluation is necessary either in Results or in Discussion.
I also had a hard time in following the description of model description (Section 2.3 Carbon-stock of vegetation biomass partitioning). Please improve this section.
I put my detailed comments below:
Line 89: “Large gaps in our knowledge of the effects of various drivers on the partitioning 88 of carbon-stocks in vegetation biomass remain.”
Through this paper, the definition of “carbon-stock” is confusing. If it is referred to as the biomass, you do not have to use it. Just use “biomass”.
Lines 123~124 “Neither the CRU nor NCEP datasets included downward shortwave and longwave radiation.” I used these data and I know they have downward shortwave and longwave radiation at 6-hourly time step. Go to TRENDY site, where you can find the links to these data.
Line 177: “Carbon-stock of vegetation biomass partitioning” I think it does not have to say “carbon-stock” if it means carbon content of biomass. Biomass can be defined as unit of carbon (e.g., kg carbon per unit of land)
Line 194: I am not clear about this equation.
Does “(ðððð¤ððððð+_ððððð¤ððððððð¡ðððððð¤ððððð¡â)” have any physical meaning?
LAmax seems to be a maximum leaf area. However it is said to be “maximum leaf area of PFTs per unit biomass (m2 m−2),” per unit biomass of what? Why is the unit m2 m-2?
Line 204: “Grass leaf biomass is supplemented”? stop to grow?
Line 206: Any scientific basis for this equation? Why is it like this?
Lines 214~215: This sentence is funny “When total woody biomass is more than 10 kg DM, which defines the minimum tree size for reproduction, 10% of non-structural carbon is transformed into litter.”
The authors are talking about “reproduction” limit of biomass, and then they tell you if this requirement is met, some NSC will be converted to litter. Then, what is reproduction? Is it “10% of non-structural carbon is transformed into seeds”?
Lines 216: “the remaining structural carbon is allocated to sapwood biomass” What is “structural carbon”?
Line 222 “Terrestrial water availability represents a significant source of variability in the ecosystem carbon cycle” This sentence is not necessary.
Line 232 “According to the flexible allocation scheme, SEIB-DGVM allocates and stores the biomass carbon …” the phrase “According to the flexible allocation scheme,” is not needed.
Lines 236~238 This sentence disrupts the description of model formulation. Reword it.
Lines 253~254: “The plant functional types are favored for establishment by the environmental conditions in each grid cell.” Reword this sentence. I could not understand what it wants to say. Does it mean the environmental conditions will select out PFT(s) in each grid cell.
Lines 260~268: section “Factorial simulation scheme” Clarify this section please. It is really difficult to understand it.
Lines 260: What are “Other drivers” in Table 1? You only listed “atmosphere CO2, precipitation, temperature, and radiation”. Specify them please.
Line 265: What is “carbon-stocks trend”?
Lines 295: I don’t understand “In terrestrial vegetation biomes, there is a high correlation between biomass carbon-stock density and NPP per unit (Erb et al., 2016; Kindermann et al., 2008)”. Why does it need “In terrestrial vegetation biomes”? per unit of what?
This is supposed to be the results. Why does it have citation here?
Lines 295~302: If this paragraph is to describe another dataset, it should be Method and Data section.
Lines 303~314: Same for this section. Move it to the data analysis method section
Lines 331~332: Move to Method section.
Lines 335~336: I am confused by the definition of “carbon-stock”. Is it new growth of biomass or the biomass a plant has?
Line 349 “a conclusion consistent with prior knowledge (Erb et al., 2018; Schimel et al., 2015)” should be in discussion.
Lines 355~357 “Based on the carbon-stock partitioning method, we found that the integrated carbon-stock as well as the above- and belowground carbon-stocks over the period of 1916–2015 exhibited a remarkable spatial heterogeneity. ” This sentence does not have information. Say it directly: What the spatial pattern is.
Lines 369~372: “Biomass carbon allocation between above- and belowground vegetation organs reflect the changes in individual growth, community structure and ecosystem function, which are important attributes in the investigation of carbon-stocks and carbon cycling within the terrestrial biosphere (Hovenden et al., 2014; Fang et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2021)” this sentence should be in discussion. Present your own results.
Throughout the results section, this type of evaluations to their own results should go to discussion.
Line 466 “4 Conclusions and discussions” Change it to “4 Discussion and conclusion”.
For a modeling paper, the uncertainty of simulations should be evaluated. One cannot pretend these simulations to be the sure thing and “offer perspectives” based on them directly. Many patterns are just artifacts from model assumptions and model response equations, which are highly uncertainty.
For example, in line 495, the authors found “the long-term change in carbon-stocks is tightly coupled to terrestrial water availability”. Then, it should be talked about that how the model simulates water effects on vegetation and to what extent this formulation can be trusted.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Shanlin Tong, 24 Jan 2022
Dear reviewer,
We extend our deep appreciation to reviewer for the constructive comments and suggestions toward improving our paper. Acknowledgement is added in the revision. According to reviewer's comments, the main works we did in this round of revision can be summarized as below (The details of revision are given after each comment and suggestion).
(1) The definition of carbon-stock is clarified in more informative ways as well as the research purpose of potential vegetation carbon-stock we used.
(2) The physical meaning of equations in SEIB-DGVM are explained in the revision.
(3) The evaluation of model uncertainty on simulation accuracy is explained.
(4) The more information of water effects on carbon-stock is added, and the applicability of SEIB-DGVM in arid region is discussed.
With substantial changes in this round, we believe our contributions to this topic are more clearly highlighted. Point-to-point responses to all the comments are attached to the supplement. The manuscript was also revised accordingly.Best,
Shanlin Tong
Wuhan Universuty, China
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Shanlin Tong, 24 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2021-383', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Mar 2022
The authors designed a suite of experiments well-suited to explore how plant individuals and communities have changed their growth strategies to deal with environmental change. However, the manuscript needs substantial rework. Most importantly, while the Introduction briefly mentions previous findings regarding shifts in above- and belowground allocation under environmental change, this should build up to a set of hypotheses that are then tested with the model experiments. It is also unclear why this was submitted to Geoscientific Model Development. Perhaps if it were more focused on comparing SEIB-DGVM biomass to observations it would fit as an evaluation paper, but the work performed is much more high-level than that. I thus think it would be more appropriate to move to Biogeosciences.
For these and other reasons that I will elaborate below, I think this manuscript should be reconsidered after major revisions and possibly moved to a different journal, if that's something Copernicus supports.
For more details and additional comments, please see the attached PDF.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Shanlin Tong, 15 Mar 2022
Dear reviewer,
We extend our deep appreciation to reviewer for the constructive comments and detailed summary toward improving our paper. Yes, this manuscript not only evaluates the SEIB-DGVM, but also reveals the changes of inner components in carbon stock. The framework of our manuscript is similar to other model evaluation paper of GMD (Mues et al. 2018; Seo and Kim 2019). Therefore, we think this manuscript fits the scope of model evaluation paper and is a potential publication in GMD.
We have studied your comments carefully, and are trying our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. We will resubmit the final response and revised manuscript no later than 07 Apr 2022.
References:
Andrea Mues et al. (2018) “WRF and WRF-Chem v3.5.1 simulations of meteorology and black carbon concentrations in the Kathmandu Valley.” Geoscientific Model Development 11(6): 2067-2091.
Seo, H. and Kim, Y. (2019) “Interactive impacts of fire and vegetation dynamics on global carbon and water budget using Community Land Model version 4.5” Geoscientific Model Development 12(1): 457-472.
Yours sincerely,
Shanlin Tong
Wuhan University
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Shanlin Tong, 15 Mar 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-383', Hans Verbeeck, 13 Mar 2022
Dear authors,
I have seen that in your final response, you did not respond to RC2 yet. Please consider to do so.
In addition, both RC1 and RC2 have posted quite fundamental comments, and RC2 is advising to consider another journal. I would like you to take these suggestions seriously and point you to the fact that only a very thorough revision of the manuscript could potetially lead to publication in GMD.
Please let me know if you have an further questions in case you consider a resubmission to GMD.
best regards,
Hans Verbeeck
topical editor
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Shanlin Tong, 15 Mar 2022
Dear Dr. Verbeeck,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. In this work, we introduced the configuration of SEIB-DGVM and evaluated the performance in the simulation of the vegetation carbon. Based on the simulations of SEIB-DGVM, we investigated the long-term trend of carbon stocks and drivers’ contributions. So, we think this manuscript is a potential publication in GMD as a model evaluation paper.
We have studied reviewers' comments carefully, and are trying our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. We will resubmit the final response and marked-up manuscript version no later than 07 Apr 2022.
We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Yours sincerely,
Shanlin Tong
Wuhan University
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Shanlin Tong, 15 Mar 2022
Shanlin Tong et al.
Shanlin Tong et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 484 | 112 | 28 | 624 | 4 | 7 |
- HTML: 484
- PDF: 112
- XML: 28
- Total: 624
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1