The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Holm, Jennifer A.
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: G, Knox, Ryan, Zhu, Qing, Fisher, Rosie A., Koven, Charles D., Nogueira Lima, Adriano J., Riley, William J., Longo, Marcos, Negrón-Juárez, Robinson I., Araüjo, Alessandro Carioca de, Kueppers, Lara M., Moorcroft, Paul R., Higuchi, Niro, Chambers, Jeffrey Quintin
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional do INPA
Texto Completo: https://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/handle/1/15453
Resumo: There is large uncertainty whether Amazon forests will remain a carbon sink as atmospheric CO2 increases. Hence, we simulated an old-growth tropical forest using six versions of four terrestrial models differing in scale of vegetation structure and representation of biogeochemical (BGC) cycling, all driven with CO2 forcing from the preindustrial period to 2100. The models were benchmarked against tree inventory and eddy covariance data from a Brazilian site for present-day predictions. All models predicted positive vegetation growth that outpaced mortality, leading to continual increases in present-day biomass accumulation. Notably, the two vegetation demographic models (VDMs) (ED2 and ELM-FATES) always predicted positive stem diameter growth in all size classes. The field data, however, indicated that a quarter of canopy trees didn't grow over the 15-year period, and while high interannual variation existed, biomass change was near neutral. With a doubling of CO2, three of the four models predicted an appreciable biomass sink (0.77 to 1.24 Mg ha−1 year−1). ELMv1-ECA, the only model used here that includes phosphorus constraints, predicted the lowest biomass sink relative to initial biomass stocks (+21%), lower than the other BGC model, CLM5 (+48%). Models projections differed primarily through variations in nutrient constraints, then carbon allocation, initial biomass, and density-dependent mortality. The VDM's performance was similar or better than the BGC models run in carbon-only mode, suggesting that nutrient competition in VDMs will improve predictions. We demonstrate that VDMs are comparable to nondemographic (i.e., “big-leaf”) models but also include finer scale demography and competition that can be evaluated against field observations. ©2020. The Authors.
id INPA-2_b397774671d20b0ec65721308dc3ae40
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio:1/15453
network_acronym_str INPA-2
network_name_str Repositório Institucional do INPA
repository_id_str
spelling Holm, Jennifer A.G, Knox, RyanZhu, QingFisher, Rosie A.Koven, Charles D.Nogueira Lima, Adriano J.Riley, William J.Longo, MarcosNegrón-Juárez, Robinson I.Araüjo, Alessandro Carioca deKueppers, Lara M.Moorcroft, Paul R.Higuchi, NiroChambers, Jeffrey Quintin2020-05-14T14:27:39Z2020-05-14T14:27:39Z2020https://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/handle/1/1545310.1029/2019JG005500There is large uncertainty whether Amazon forests will remain a carbon sink as atmospheric CO2 increases. Hence, we simulated an old-growth tropical forest using six versions of four terrestrial models differing in scale of vegetation structure and representation of biogeochemical (BGC) cycling, all driven with CO2 forcing from the preindustrial period to 2100. The models were benchmarked against tree inventory and eddy covariance data from a Brazilian site for present-day predictions. All models predicted positive vegetation growth that outpaced mortality, leading to continual increases in present-day biomass accumulation. Notably, the two vegetation demographic models (VDMs) (ED2 and ELM-FATES) always predicted positive stem diameter growth in all size classes. The field data, however, indicated that a quarter of canopy trees didn't grow over the 15-year period, and while high interannual variation existed, biomass change was near neutral. With a doubling of CO2, three of the four models predicted an appreciable biomass sink (0.77 to 1.24 Mg ha−1 year−1). ELMv1-ECA, the only model used here that includes phosphorus constraints, predicted the lowest biomass sink relative to initial biomass stocks (+21%), lower than the other BGC model, CLM5 (+48%). Models projections differed primarily through variations in nutrient constraints, then carbon allocation, initial biomass, and density-dependent mortality. The VDM's performance was similar or better than the BGC models run in carbon-only mode, suggesting that nutrient competition in VDMs will improve predictions. We demonstrate that VDMs are comparable to nondemographic (i.e., “big-leaf”) models but also include finer scale demography and competition that can be evaluated against field observations. ©2020. The Authors.Volume 125, Número 3Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazilhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAnnual VariationBiogeochemical CycleBiomassBiomass AllocationCarbon SinkDensity DependenceEddy CovariancePhosphorusTropical ForestVegetation StructureThe Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Modelsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciencesengreponame:Repositório Institucional do INPAinstname:Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)instacron:INPAORIGINALCentral.pdfCentral.pdfapplication/pdf3685232https://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/bitstream/1/15453/1/Central.pdfe1c4b9c5c2eb1bc5766e15bc0209d307MD511/154532020-07-14 11:07:34.749oai:repositorio:1/15453Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/oai/requestopendoar:2020-07-14T15:07:34Repositório Institucional do INPA - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)false
dc.title.en.fl_str_mv The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
title The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
spellingShingle The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
Holm, Jennifer A.
Annual Variation
Biogeochemical Cycle
Biomass
Biomass Allocation
Carbon Sink
Density Dependence
Eddy Covariance
Phosphorus
Tropical Forest
Vegetation Structure
title_short The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
title_full The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
title_fullStr The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
title_full_unstemmed The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
title_sort The Central Amazon Biomass Sink Under Current and Future Atmospheric CO2: Predictions From Big-Leaf and Demographic Vegetation Models
author Holm, Jennifer A.
author_facet Holm, Jennifer A.
G, Knox, Ryan
Zhu, Qing
Fisher, Rosie A.
Koven, Charles D.
Nogueira Lima, Adriano J.
Riley, William J.
Longo, Marcos
Negrón-Juárez, Robinson I.
Araüjo, Alessandro Carioca de
Kueppers, Lara M.
Moorcroft, Paul R.
Higuchi, Niro
Chambers, Jeffrey Quintin
author_role author
author2 G, Knox, Ryan
Zhu, Qing
Fisher, Rosie A.
Koven, Charles D.
Nogueira Lima, Adriano J.
Riley, William J.
Longo, Marcos
Negrón-Juárez, Robinson I.
Araüjo, Alessandro Carioca de
Kueppers, Lara M.
Moorcroft, Paul R.
Higuchi, Niro
Chambers, Jeffrey Quintin
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Holm, Jennifer A.
G, Knox, Ryan
Zhu, Qing
Fisher, Rosie A.
Koven, Charles D.
Nogueira Lima, Adriano J.
Riley, William J.
Longo, Marcos
Negrón-Juárez, Robinson I.
Araüjo, Alessandro Carioca de
Kueppers, Lara M.
Moorcroft, Paul R.
Higuchi, Niro
Chambers, Jeffrey Quintin
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Annual Variation
Biogeochemical Cycle
Biomass
Biomass Allocation
Carbon Sink
Density Dependence
Eddy Covariance
Phosphorus
Tropical Forest
Vegetation Structure
topic Annual Variation
Biogeochemical Cycle
Biomass
Biomass Allocation
Carbon Sink
Density Dependence
Eddy Covariance
Phosphorus
Tropical Forest
Vegetation Structure
description There is large uncertainty whether Amazon forests will remain a carbon sink as atmospheric CO2 increases. Hence, we simulated an old-growth tropical forest using six versions of four terrestrial models differing in scale of vegetation structure and representation of biogeochemical (BGC) cycling, all driven with CO2 forcing from the preindustrial period to 2100. The models were benchmarked against tree inventory and eddy covariance data from a Brazilian site for present-day predictions. All models predicted positive vegetation growth that outpaced mortality, leading to continual increases in present-day biomass accumulation. Notably, the two vegetation demographic models (VDMs) (ED2 and ELM-FATES) always predicted positive stem diameter growth in all size classes. The field data, however, indicated that a quarter of canopy trees didn't grow over the 15-year period, and while high interannual variation existed, biomass change was near neutral. With a doubling of CO2, three of the four models predicted an appreciable biomass sink (0.77 to 1.24 Mg ha−1 year−1). ELMv1-ECA, the only model used here that includes phosphorus constraints, predicted the lowest biomass sink relative to initial biomass stocks (+21%), lower than the other BGC model, CLM5 (+48%). Models projections differed primarily through variations in nutrient constraints, then carbon allocation, initial biomass, and density-dependent mortality. The VDM's performance was similar or better than the BGC models run in carbon-only mode, suggesting that nutrient competition in VDMs will improve predictions. We demonstrate that VDMs are comparable to nondemographic (i.e., “big-leaf”) models but also include finer scale demography and competition that can be evaluated against field observations. ©2020. The Authors.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2020-05-14T14:27:39Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2020-05-14T14:27:39Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2020
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/handle/1/15453
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.1029/2019JG005500
url https://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/handle/1/15453
identifier_str_mv 10.1029/2019JG005500
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Volume 125, Número 3
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional do INPA
instname:Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)
instacron:INPA
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)
instacron_str INPA
institution INPA
reponame_str Repositório Institucional do INPA
collection Repositório Institucional do INPA
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/bitstream/1/15453/1/Central.pdf
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv e1c4b9c5c2eb1bc5766e15bc0209d307
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional do INPA - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1797064404677689344