Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT
Zur Ablage hinzufügen
  Lokale TagsFreigabegeschichteDetailsÜbersicht

Freigegeben
Zeitschriftenartikel

Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

MPG-Autoren
/persons/resource/persons180452

Nabel,  Julia E. M. S.       
Computational Infrastructure and Model Development (CIMD), Scientific Computing Lab (ScLab), MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons37296

Pongratz,  Julia       
Climate-Biogeosphere Interaction, The Ocean in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

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

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt
Volltexte (beschränkter Zugriff)
Für Ihren IP-Bereich sind aktuell keine Volltexte freigegeben.
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)

s41467-022-32416-8.pdf
(Verlagsversion), 3MB

Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)

41467_2022_32416_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
(Ergänzendes Material), 2MB

Zitation

O’Sullivan, M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., et al. (2022). Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink. Nature Communications, 13: 4781. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32416-8.


Zitierlink: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000A-E916-7
Zusammenfassung
The observed global net land carbon sink is captured by current land models. All models agree that atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen deposition driven gains in carbon stocks are partially offset by climate and land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) losses. However, there is a lack of consensus in the partitioning of the sink between vegetation and soil, where models do not even agree on the direction of change in carbon stocks over the past 60 years. This uncertainty is driven by plant productivity, allocation, and turnover response to atmospheric CO2 (and to a smaller extent to LULCC), and the response of soil to LULCC (and to a lesser extent climate). Overall, differences in turnover explain ~70% of model spread in both vegetation and soil carbon changes. Further analysis of internal plant and soil (individual pools) cycling is needed to reduce uncertainty in the controlling processes behind the global land carbon sink.