Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT
  Can we model observed soil carbon changes from a dense inventory? A case study over England and Wales using three versions of the ORCHIDEE ecosystem model (AR5, AR5-PRIM and O-CN)

Guenet, B., Moyano, F. E., Vuichard, N., Kirk, G. J. D., Bellamy, P. H., Zaehle, S., et al. (2013). Can we model observed soil carbon changes from a dense inventory? A case study over England and Wales using three versions of the ORCHIDEE ecosystem model (AR5, AR5-PRIM and O-CN). Geoscientific Model Development, 6, 2153-2163. doi:10.5194/gmd-6-2153-2013.

Item is

Dateien

einblenden: Dateien
ausblenden: Dateien
:
BGC1971.pdf (Verlagsversion), 458KB
Name:
BGC1971.pdf
Beschreibung:
-
OA-Status:
Sichtbarkeit:
Öffentlich
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-
Lizenz:
-
:
BGC1971D.pdf (Verlagsversion), 2MB
Name:
BGC1971D.pdf
Beschreibung:
Discussion paper
OA-Status:
Sichtbarkeit:
Öffentlich
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-
Lizenz:
-

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:
ausblenden:
externe Referenz:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-2153-2013 (Verlagsversion)
Beschreibung:
OA
OA-Status:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Guenet, B., Autor
Moyano, F. E., Autor
Vuichard, N., Autor
Kirk, G. J. D., Autor
Bellamy, P. H., Autor
Zaehle, Sönke1, 2, Autor           
Ciais, P., Autor
Affiliations:
1Terrestrial Biosphere Modelling & Data assimilation, Dr. S. Zähle, Department Biogeochemical Systems, Prof. M. Heimann, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society, ou_1497787              
2Terrestrial Biosphere Modelling , Dr. Sönke Zähle, Department Biogeochemical Integration, Dr. M. Reichstein, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society, ou_1938309              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: -
 Zusammenfassung: A widespread decrease of the topsoil carbon content was observed over England and Wales during the period 1978–2003 in the National Soil Inventory (NSI), amounting to a carbon loss of 4.44 Tg yr−1 over 141 550 km2. Subsequent modelling studies have shown that changes in temperature and precipitation could only account for a small part of the observed decrease, and therefore that changes in land use and management and resulting changes in heterotrophic respiration or net primary productivity were the main causes. So far, all the models used to reproduce the NSI data have not accounted for plant–soil interactions and have only been soil carbon models with carbon inputs forced by data. Here, we use three different versions of a process-based coupled soil–vegetation model called ORCHIDEE (Organizing Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic Ecosystems), in order to separate the effect of trends in soil carbon input from soil carbon mineralization induced by climate trends over 1978–2003. The first version of the model (ORCHIDEE-AR5), used for IPCC-AR5 CMIP5 Earth System simulations, is based on three soil carbon pools defined with first-order decomposition kinetics, as in the CENTURY model. The second version (ORCHIDEE-AR5-PRIM) built for this study includes a relationship between litter carbon and decomposition rates, to reproduce a priming effect on decomposition. The last version (O-CN) takes into account N-related processes. Soil carbon decomposition in O-CN is based on CENTURY, but adds N limitations on litter decomposition.We performed regional gridded simulations with these three versions of the ORCHIDEE model over England and Wales. None of the three model versions was able to reproduce the observed NSI soil carbon trend. This suggests either that climate change is not the main driver for observed soil carbon losses or that the ORCHIDEE model even with priming or N effects on decomposition lacks the basic mechanisms to explain soil carbon change in response to climate, which would raise a caution flag about the ability of this type of model to project soil carbon changes in response to future warming. A third possible explanation could be that the NSI measurements made on the topsoil are not representative of the total soil carbon losses integrated over the entire soil depth, and thus cannot be compared with the model output.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n):
 Datum: 2013-11-182013-12-19
 Publikationsstatus: Online veröffentlicht
 Seiten: -
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: -
 Identifikatoren: Anderer: BGC1971
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-6-2153-2013
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Geoscientific Model Development
  Andere : Geosci. Model Dev.
  Kurztitel : GMD
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: Göttingen : Copernicus Publ.
Seiten: - Band / Heft: 6 Artikelnummer: - Start- / Endseite: 2153 - 2163 Identifikator: ISSN: 1991-959X
CoNE: https://pure.mpg.de/cone/journals/resource/1991-959X