English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Evaluating two soil carbon models within the global land surface model JSBACH using surface and spaceborne observations of atmospheric CO2

MPS-Authors

Thum,  Tea
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons180452

Nabel,  Julia E. M. S.
Emmy Noether Junior Research Group Forest Management in the Earth System, The Land in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons37296

Pongratz,  Julia
Emmy Noether Junior Research Group Forest Management in the Earth System, The Land in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

Zaehle,  Sönke
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)

bg-17-5721-2020.pdf
(Publisher version), 4MB

Supplementary Material (public)

bg-17-5721-2020-supplement.pdf
(Supplementary material), 9MB

Citation

Thum, T., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Tsuruta, A., Aalto, T., Dlugokencky, J. L., Liski, J., et al. (2020). Evaluating two soil carbon models within the global land surface model JSBACH using surface and spaceborne observations of atmospheric CO2. Biogeosciences, 17, 5721-5743. doi:10.5194/bg-17-5721-2020.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0006-8918-5
Abstract
The trajectories of soil carbon (C) in the changing climate are of utmost importance, as soil carbon is a substantial carbon storage with a large potential to impact the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) burden. Atmospheric CO2 observations integrate all processes affecting C exchange between the surface and the atmosphere. Therefore they provide a benchmark for carbon cycle models. We evaluated two distinct soil carbon models (CBALANCE and YASSO) that were implemented to a global land surface model (JSBACH) against atmospheric CO2 observations. We transported the biospheric carbon fluxes obtained by JSBACH using the atmospheric transport model TM5 to obtain atmospheric CO2. We then compared these results with surface observations from Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) stations as well as with column XCO2 retrievals from the GOSAT satellite. The seasonal cycles of atmospheric CO2 estimated by the two different soil models differed. The estimates from the CBALANCE soil model were more in line with the surface observations at low latitudes (0 N–45 N) with only 1 % bias in the seasonal cycle amplitude (SCA), whereas YASSO was underestimating the SCA in this region by 32 %. YASSO gave more realistic seasonal cycle amplitudes of CO2 at northern boreal sites (north of 45 N) with underestimation of 15 % compared to 30 % overestimation by CBALANCE. Generally, the estimates from CBALANCE were more successful in capturing the seasonal patterns and seasonal cycle amplitudes of atmospheric CO2 even though it overestimated soil carbon stocks by 225 % (compared to underestimation of 36 % by YASSO) and its predictions of the global distribution of soil carbon stocks was unrealistic. The reasons for these differences in the results are related to the different environmental drivers and their functional dependencies of these two soil carbon models. In the tropical region the YASSO model showed earlier increase in season of the heterotophic respiration since it is driven by precipitation instead of soil moisture as CBALANCE. In the temperate and boreal region the role of temperature is more dominant. There the heterotophic respiration from the YASSO model had larger annual variability, driven by air temperature, compared to the CBALANCE which is driven by soil temperature. The results underline the importance of using sub-yearly data in the development of soil carbon models when they are used in shorter than annual time scales.