<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-17-3589-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>The impact of a simple representation of non-structural carbohydrates on the simulated response of<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> tropical forests to drought</article-title><alt-title>A simple representation of NSC</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{A simple representation of NSC}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{S. Jones et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>Simon</given-names></name>
          <email>sj326@exeter.ac.uk</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Rowland</surname><given-names>Lucy</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Cox</surname><given-names>Peter</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0679-2219</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Hemming</surname><given-names>Deborah</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Wiltshire</surname><given-names>Andy</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>Karina</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1185-535X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Parazoo</surname><given-names>Nicholas C.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4424-7780</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Junjie</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>da Costa</surname><given-names>Antonio C. L.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7 aff8">
          <name><surname>Meir</surname><given-names>Patrick</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff9 aff10">
          <name><surname>Mencuccini</surname><given-names>Maurizio</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0840-1477</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Harper</surname><given-names>Anna B.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7294-6039</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QF, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QF, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QE, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Instituto de Geosciencias, Universidade Federal do Para, Belem, Brazil</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>8</label><institution>School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Lothian EH9 3FF, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff9"><label>9</label><institution>ICREA, Pg. Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff10"><label>10</label><institution>CREAF, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Valles 08193,
Barcelona, Spain</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Simon Jones (sj326@exeter.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>10</day><month>July</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>13</issue>
      <fpage>3589</fpage><lpage>3612</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>19</day><month>November</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>28</day><month>November</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>4</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>30</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Simon Jones et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e246">Accurately representing the response of ecosystems to environmental change in land surface models (LSMs) is crucial to making accurate predictions of future climate. Many LSMs do not correctly capture plant respiration and growth fluxes, particularly in response to extreme climatic events. This is in part due to the unrealistic assumption that total plant carbon expenditure (PCE) is always equal to gross carbon accumulation by photosynthesis. We present and evaluate a simple model of labile carbon storage and utilisation (SUGAR) designed to be integrated into an LSM, which allows simulated plant respiration and growth to vary independent of photosynthesis. SUGAR buffers simulated PCE against seasonal variation in photosynthesis, producing more constant (less variable) predictions of plant growth and respiration relative to an LSM that does not represent labile carbon storage. This allows the model to more accurately capture observed carbon fluxes at a large-scale drought experiment in a tropical moist forest in the Amazon, relative to the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator LSM (JULES). SUGAR is designed to improve the representation of carbon storage in LSMs and provides a simple framework that allows new processes to be integrated as the empirical understanding of carbon storage in plants improves. The study highlights the need for future research into carbon storage and allocation in plants, particularly in response to extreme climate events such as drought.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <?pagebreak page3590?><p id="d1e258">Correctly representing the balance between plant photosynthesis, growth and autotrophic respiration in the land surface model (LSM) component of Earth System Models (ESMs) is crucial to making accurate projections of global climate in the future. Forests cover nearly 4000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx96" id="paren.1"/> of the worlds land surface and represent a significant sink of carbon from the atmosphere, sequestering <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Pg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, roughly 25 % of total annual anthropogenic carbon emissions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="paren.2"/>. Most LSMs simulate growth and respiration as equal to instantaneous photosynthesis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.3"/>. Consequently, at any given time, the total rate of carbon utilisation by respiration and growth, referred to as plant carbon expenditure (PCE), is equal to the rate of carbon accumulation by photosynthesis, commonly referred to as gross primary productivity (GPP). However, in reality growth and respiration are not so strictly coupled to photosynthesis and plants regularly experience periods when the supply of carbon from photosynthesis does not equal the demands of growth and respiration <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx65" id="paren.4"/>. This asynchrony between supply and demand is facilitated by reserve pools of labile carbon known collectively as non-structural carbohydrates (NSCs). The NSC pool within a plant accumulates when photosynthesis exceeds carbon demand and is drawn upon to sustain growth and respiration when they are not supported by instantaneous photosynthetic assimilation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45 bib1.bibx28" id="paren.5"/>. NSCs therefore act as a buffer, allowing key functional processes to be maintained, even when photosynthetic accumulation is low. This buffering is particularly important during periods of environmental stress, which can lead to reduced productivity over seasonal to multi-annual timescales. During prolonged periods of stress, carbon utilisation rates can diverge significantly from photosynthesis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx29 bib1.bibx30" id="paren.6"/> implying that plants rely heavily on their NSC reserves during these periods. Without simulating NSC storage, LSMs remain unable to capture this asynchrony between GPP and PCE and thus fail to correctly simulate forest-level respiration and growth fluxes.</p>
      <p id="d1e323">The ability to sustain respiration and growth during periods of reduced productivity is an important process that can allow plants to survive and recover from extreme short-term climate events, such as drought <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="paren.7"/>. Under low water availability the transport of water from roots to other organs can be compromised by the cavitation of xylem tissue in the plant <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58 bib1.bibx81 bib1.bibx95" id="paren.8"/>. Xylem damage can lead to a drop in hydraulic conductance, resulting in damage to plant tissue and increased risk of mortality <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74 bib1.bibx4 bib1.bibx60" id="paren.9"/>. Plants combat this threat through control over the aperture of their stomata. Closing the stomata reduces water loss through transpiration and lowers the risk of xylem damage and hydraulic failure. The trade-off to this strategy is a reduction in productivity. The ability of a plant to employ this strategy is therefore reliant on its ability to store and utilise NSC. If carbon demand exceeds supply over long periods of drought, NSC reserves become exhausted, causing essential elements of plant function to fail, a process termed “carbon starvation”. Carbon starvation and hydraulic failure are tightly linked processes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64 bib1.bibx2" id="paren.10"/>, not only because of their shared dependence on stomatal conductance but also due to the role that carbohydrates have in processes such as osmoregulation and, potentially, in refilling of embolised xylem <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx80" id="paren.11"/>. Carbon starvation may accelerate the effects of hydraulic failure and, in some cases, itself lead directly to mortality <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38 bib1.bibx1" id="paren.12"/>. Recent developments in modelling plant hydraulics <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx62 bib1.bibx31 bib1.bibx82 bib1.bibx7" id="paren.13"/> provide more accurate predictions of stomatal behaviour during drought; however, these developments must also be accompanied by models of carbon storage in order to effectively simulate the trade-off between hydraulic damage and productivity loss. Until such developments are made, predictions of plant mortality and recovery in response to climate extremes such as drought will remain uncertain.</p>
      <p id="d1e348">Accurately simulating forest mortality is vital to accurate predictions of climate. This is particularly true in tropical regions where terrestrial carbon storage is large <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx68" id="paren.14"/> and forests are frequently subjected to intense periods of environmental stress. Intense dry periods can reduce vegetation productivity and increase plant mortality in the tropics, over both short-term <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx70 bib1.bibx10 bib1.bibx55 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.15"/> and multi-annual timescales <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74 bib1.bibx61 bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx35 bib1.bibx24" id="paren.16"/>. When combined with the effects of fire and land-use change, drought can cause regions such as the Amazon basin to shift from a net sink to a net source of carbon to the atmosphere <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39 bib1.bibx54 bib1.bibx70" id="paren.17"/>. Loss of terrestrial carbon in the Amazon represents a significant feedback loop in the climate system <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.18"/>, and large losses of biomass could cause drastic and irreversible changes to the climate. However, the nature of this “tipping point” is uncertain, and without accurate representation of forest resilience, including the balance between hydraulic failure and carbon starvation, predictions of large-scale forest die-back will remain unreliable. Drought is predicted to increase in both frequency and severity across the tropical rainforest biome in response to climate change <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx57 bib1.bibx50" id="paren.19"/>. Accurately simulating drought responses is therefore a priority for the global modelling community <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21 bib1.bibx33" id="paren.20"/>, although many efforts to date have focused on simulating plant hydraulic properties and have largely ignored the development of a NSC pool in models.</p>
      <p id="d1e373">Despite their clear role in forest function, our current understanding of how NSCs are produced, stored and used remains poor <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="paren.21"/>. Absolute pool sizes are difficult to quantify <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="paren.22"/>, and it is not clear how NSC reserves are distributed and transported between different plant organs under stress <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59 bib1.bibx80" id="paren.23"/>. It is also not clear whether NSC storage is the passive result of asynchrony between supply and demand, as described above, or whether plants also have the capacity to actively regulate NSC stores at the expense of growth and respiration <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx67 bib1.bibx97" id="paren.24"/>. This may go some way toward explaining the apparent absence of substrate-based<?pagebreak page3591?> modelling approaches within many LSMs. Some optimised modelling studies have been conducted that explore models of NSC storage and the substrate limitation of respiration and growth <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx85 bib1.bibx86 bib1.bibx87 bib1.bibx88 bib1.bibx89 bib1.bibx90 bib1.bibx91 bib1.bibx92 bib1.bibx84 bib1.bibx27" id="paren.25"/>. These provide a theoretical framework to develop mechanistic models of NSC storage and utilisation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46 bib1.bibx37 bib1.bibx79" id="paren.26"/> that allow detailed simulations of plant function. However, there have been few attempts to develop such models in a manner that would be compatible with large-scale LSMs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.27"/>. This can largely be attributed to a scarcity of ecosystem level data (NSC content and distribution) that can be used to parameterise and evaluate models for a range of species and climates that covers all plant functional types (PFTs) used in LSMs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="paren.28"/>. Site-level studies that explore how the components of plant carbon expenditure respond to environmental change <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx56 bib1.bibx63" id="paren.29"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref> provide useful insights into the role of NSCs within a plant and can guide model development. Nonetheless, given our current knowledge and data availability, it is necessary to develop a parameter-sparse model that can be calibrated against data sources that can be more effectively collected (e.g. growth and respiration data) and yet capture the essential characteristics of representing a NSC pool (e.g. decoupling photosynthesis from growth and respiration). Such an effort will not only constrain future climate projections but may also be used to stimulate further research that improves our empirical understanding of NSC storage and use.</p>
      <p id="d1e407">In this study we present “Substrate Utilisation by Growth and Autotrophic Respiration” (SUGAR), a simplified model of substrate utilisation, designed to work within an LSM. The aim of the model is to allow the decoupling of PCE and GPP in order to provide a more accurate representation of respiration and growth fluxes, in particular in response to environmental stress. To demonstrate its behaviour and applicability to large-scale ecosystem modelling, we use SUGAR to simulate PCE fluxes over the Amazon basin, using GPP data from an ensemble of LSMs, constrained by global fluorescence measurements from the Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="paren.30"/> as driving data. We assess the sensitivity of the model to initialised NSC content within a reasonable range of possible pool sizes and assess the changes the model makes to predictions of ecosystem carbon expenditure. We also test the model under stressed and non-stressed conditions by simulating the world's longest-running tropical rainforest throughfall exclusion (TFE) experiment and corresponding control forest in the Caxiuanã national forest, Brazil, over a 16-year period. Previous simulations of the TFE experiment by multiple LSMs have highlighted their inefficiency at capturing the effects of the artificial drought on forest function <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx72" id="paren.31"/>. It remains unclear to what extent the lack of NSC dynamics is responsible for the discrepancies between model predictions and observations in these previous studies. We examine the role NSC dynamics has on model predictions during the drought by post-processing the output of one of these LSMs, namely the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES). We compare the results from JULES and the new predictions from SUGAR to observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx25" id="paren.32"/> and a time series of net primary productivity (NPP) derived from data collected in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74" id="text.33"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Model description</title>
      <p id="d1e430">Our “Substrate Utilisation by Growth and Autotrophic Respiration (SUGAR)” model simulates a single pool of carbohydrate at a grid box scale for each vegetation tile (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). Sugars and starches are not distinguished, meaning that all carbohydrate is readily available to support respiration and growth. Representing just a single pool in this way keeps the model simple and parameter sparse making integration into an LSM much easier. SUGAR is designed to sit below the photosynthesis component of a LSM. Assimilated carbon from photosynthesis (GPP) is collected by the NSC pool and the total carbon allocated to respiration and growth is then calculated and taken directly from the NSC pool. The pool is therefore always active and is constantly depleted by growth and respiration and replenished by photosynthesis. Both growth and respiration are assumed to be single-substrate enzyme reactions and depend on NSC content via the Michaelis–Menten equation. Respiration and growth both depend on temperature via the standard <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx77" id="paren.34"/>. Carbohydrate content is not actively regulated by the plants in SUGAR, meaning that variations in NSC stores are the passive result of asynchrony between photosynthesis and PCE caused by variations in climate.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e451">Flow diagrams that demonstrate how SUGAR is designed to change the model structure of carbon allocation within the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11 bib1.bibx20" id="altparen.35"/>). Arrows represent fluxes of carbon, and black boxes represent carbon pools. <bold>(a)</bold> A representation of the current structure of carbon allocation in JULES. Maintenance respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) depends on temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), leaf nitrogen (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and, optionally, water availability (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Growth respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is equal to a constant fraction of growth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is equal to photosynthesis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) less total plant respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Total utilisation of carbon (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is always exactly equal to carbon assimilation by photosynthesis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). <bold>(b)</bold> A representation of how SUGAR would sit within JULES. The dashed red box represents the model boundary of SUGAR. Both maintenance respiration and growth depend on temperature via a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), structural biomass (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and non-structural carbohydrate content (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Growth respiration is a constant fraction of growth.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Non-structural carbohydrate pool</title>
      <p id="d1e634">The rate of change of NSC content (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is described by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M20" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is canopy GPP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is total plant respiration and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is plant growth.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3592?><p id="d1e718">Using the following definition of net primary productivity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.Ex1"><mml:math id="M25" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) is written as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M26" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          To quantify the size of the NSC pool we consider an unstressed forest at steady state. We define the average or equilibrium NSC pool size at steady state as a fraction of total structural carbon biomass and denote it by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is then used to initialise the NSC pool:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M28" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is structural carbon biomass and the asterisk indicates steady state.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Growth</title>
      <p id="d1e860">Plant growth depends on temperature and NSC availability. The temperature dependence is assumed to follow a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exponential relationship and the NSC dependence follows Michaelis–Menten reaction kinetics:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M31" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the maximum specific growth rate at the reference temperature 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) is temperature, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is total structural carbon biomass, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a half saturation constant equal to the NSC mass fraction at which growth rate is half of its maximum value at the reference temperature and related to the steady-state NSC mass fraction by Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E6"/>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> temperature dependence given by the following equation:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M42" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a constant taken to be 2.0 by default.</p>
      <p id="d1e1127">The half saturation constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is expressed as a fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M47" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a constant with the default value of 0.5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Respiration</title>
      <p id="d1e1219">Plant respiration is split into maintenance and growth components. Growth respiration is calculated as a constant fraction of plant growth:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M49" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the growth conversion efficiency, or yield, with a default value of 0.75 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx93" id="paren.36"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1271">Maintenance respiration has the same temperature and NSC dependence as plant growth:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M51" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the maximum specific rate of maintenance respiration at the reference temperature 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Total carbohydrate utilisation</title>
      <p id="d1e1384">The total rate of NSC utilisation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, is defined as the sum of plant respiration and growth:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M56" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> here is exactly equivalent to PCE and is only denoted differently for convenience and ease of reading. Using this definition, Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) can be written as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><label>10</label><mml:math id="M58" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Since both respiration and growth have the same NSC and temperature dependence, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is given by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><label>11</label><mml:math id="M60" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum specific rate of utilisation of carbohydrate at the reference temperature 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3593?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Parameter estimation</title>
      <p id="d1e1575">Detailed time series data of forest-level NSC stocks are extremely difficult to collect and are therefore scarce. This makes parameter evaluation difficult. Here we discuss the evaluation process for each parameter in SUGAR. Some of these parameters, for example the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter, have standard or commonly used values within the LSM literature, and the validity of their given values is beyond the scope of this paper. In these cases we present only a very brief justification. For the remaining parameters, we outline how with a few assumptions we can use the simplicity of SUGAR to evaluate these parameters without the need for detailed NSC data and instead use more commonly and readily measured variables. An overview of all parameters, their default values and the values used in this study is given in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1593"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter represents the factor by which respiration and growth increase with every 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C of warming. The exponential <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function is commonly used to describe the temperature dependence of plant metabolism in LSMs with the standard <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 2.0 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx77" id="paren.37"/>.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1652"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter represents the conversion efficiency of plant growth <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx93" id="paren.38"/>. By default, we assume a value of 0.75, consistent with previous estimates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx93" id="paren.39"/> and the parameters assumed in other LSMs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.40"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref> Similar parameters are used in other LSMs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.41"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1693"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter represents the non-stressed, equilibrium NSC pool size as a fraction of total structural carbon. This can be set directly using empirical data (e.g. for tropical forests using <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx99" id="altparen.42"/>). Note that studies such as <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx99" id="text.43"/> present NSC stocks as a fraction of total dry mass and so data should be adjusted to account for non-carbon mass.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1724"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter represents the maximum specific rate of carbohydrate utilisation by plant respiration and growth at the reference temperature of 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. To estimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> we consider an unstressed forest at steady state with an NSC fraction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Under these circumstances the forest is neither significantly drawing upon nor adding to the NSC stores and the turnover rate of NSC must be equal to the carbon assimilated by photosynthesis. This allows the following expression for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to be found in terms of GPP and forest biomass, which are more easily measured at an ecosystem scale than total NSC stocks:<disp-formula id="Ch1.E12" content-type="numbered"><label>12</label><mml:math id="M79" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>where the asterisk denotes a temporal average over the period <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. i.e for variable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:<disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><label>13</label><mml:math id="M82" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>To evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, we require an estimate of average specific GPP and average temperature over the period of observation. If SUGAR is used at a single site these can be evaluated directly using GPP, biomass and temperature data where these are available. If these data are not available, then the specific GPP can be approximated as the steady-state carbon residency time, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.44"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>, and the temperature can found using global climatology data over the same period.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1931"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These parameters represent the maximum specific rate of plant growth and maintenance respiration, respectively, at the reference temperature of 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. To evaluate these parameters we define the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:<disp-formula id="Ch1.E14" content-type="numbered"><label>14</label><mml:math id="M91" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>We can then evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by again considering a non-stressed forest in steady state, when it is equal to the average carbon use efficiency (CUE) over the period of observation:<disp-formula id="Ch1.E15" content-type="numbered"><label>15</label><mml:math id="M93" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>Again this can be evaluated using data from a single site where available or using more general estimates of CUE <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17 bib1.bibx40" id="paren.45"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref> if not.</p>
      <p id="d1e2045">We then can find <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as follows:<disp-formula id="Ch1.E16" content-type="numbered"><label>16</label><mml:math id="M96" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>and<disp-formula id="Ch1.E17" content-type="numbered"><label>17</label><mml:math id="M97" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2130"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter relates the half saturation constant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to the equilibrium NSC pool size (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). It is currently not possible to evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from empirical data. We give this parameter a value of 0.5, as this gives realistic NSC mass fractions. The sensitivity of the SUGAR model to this parameter is examined in this study within the range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item></list></p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e2229">Parameters in SUGAR.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Units</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Value (Cax)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Range</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Description</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Justification</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.1–0.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Equilibrium NSC mass fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx99" id="text.46"/>
                  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Factor by which respiration and growth increase given a 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> warming</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx77" id="text.47"/>
                  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Growth conversion efficiency</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx93" id="text.48"/>
                  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.1–2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.1–2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Relates the half saturation NSC mass<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with the equilibrium pool<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>size (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Sensitivity study carried out in this<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>study</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.3–0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Ratio of plant growth to total carbohydrate utilisation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Evaluated by setting equal to steady<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>state carbon use efficiency (CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Between 0.3 and 0.5 for a tropical forest <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17 bib1.bibx40" id="paren.49"/></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Maximum specific rate of NSC utilisation at 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Evaluated in terms of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using average specific photosynthesis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of a forest in steady state. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Can also be<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>evaluated in terms of vegetation carbon<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>residency time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.50"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e2232"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of NSC relative to total structural carbon, and thus estimates of NSC as a fraction of total dry mass should be adjusted to account for non-carbon biomass.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page3594?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Sensitivity study over the Amazon Basin</title>
      <p id="d1e2759">To demonstrate how SUGAR influences predictions of PCE, we conduct a series of simulations over a 6.5 year period from June 2009 to December 2015, across the whole Amazon, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is varied from 0.0005–0.16. As <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the initial fraction of the biomass pool that is NSC, a value of 0.0005 is effectively representing a model without NSC. The upper bound of 0.16 is an estimate of the ecosystem NSC content in a tropical forest in Panama <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx99" id="paren.51"/>. The model is driven with monthly GPP data from an ensemble of LSMs constrained by global fluorescence measurements from the Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="paren.52"/> and temperature data from CRU-JRA <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="paren.53"/>. SUGAR is parameterised as described above with parameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kept at their default values. A value for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is found for each grid box using biomass estimates across the Amazon <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.54"/> and the first year of GOSAT GPP.</p>
      <p id="d1e2841">To assess the effect that the SUGAR model has on predictions of PCE, a basin-wide average PCE flux is compared to the basin average GPP for each value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The Pearson correlation coefficient of simulated PCE and driving GPP, and PCE and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function in each grid cell is also calculated for each value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and presented on maps.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Methods – simulating responses to drought</title>
      <p id="d1e2885">To evaluate the effectiveness of SUGAR at simulating responses to drought, we tested it at the world's longest tropical drought experiment.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>4.2.1</label><title>Site description</title>
      <p id="d1e2895">The TFE experiment is located in Caxiuanã National Forest, Pará State, Brazil (1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>43<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>3.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 51<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>27<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W), where measurements of meteorology and plant physiology of two 1 ha plots began in 2001. In January 2002, panels were introduced into one of the plots, excluding ca. 50 % of rainfall from the soils and subjecting the plot to an artificial drought. Measurements of meteorology and forest physiology continue to the present day (this study covers only up to 9 December 2016). During this period, mean annual rainfall was between 1772.6 and 2967.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Daily incident radiation varied from 419.8 to 731.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. A full summary of the experimental set-up and the most recent collection of results from the site are available in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="text.55"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e2987">At the start of the experiment, total estimated above-ground biomass was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">213.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the control forest, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the TFE plot. After 13 years of the drought treatment, biomass loss to mortality in the TFE plot had increased by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">41.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % relative to 2001 values <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74" id="paren.56"/>. Observations and modelling studies at the site suggest that while GPP declined in response to<?pagebreak page3595?> the artificial drought, PCE was maintained at close to pre-drought levels during at least the first 3–4 years of the experiment <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx35" id="paren.57"/>. NSC reserves are thought to have sustained PCE during this time and it is estimated that the forest had access to ca. 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of available NSC (ca. 8 % of live biomass) during the drought <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.58"/>. It is not possible for LSMs to accurately predict both growth and respiration in the TFE forest without simulating some kind of NSC storage, and this makes the experiment an ideal opportunity to test SUGAR.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>4.2.2</label><title>Simulation descriptions</title>
      <p id="d1e3095">The TFE experiment and corresponding control plot are simulated over the period 1 January 2001 to 9 December 2016. The first set of simulations are conducted using the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11 bib1.bibx20" id="paren.59"/>, driven with the meteorological data collected at Caxiuanã. JULES version 5.2 is used with a pre-existing parameterisation of the site and then optimised so that annual GPP and NPP in the control forest agree with observations. For details of this optimisation, please see the Supplement. The same configuration is then used to simulate the TFE forest. Both the control and TFE plots were initialised and spun up for 176 years using a repeated loop of the control meteorological data. To simulate the effect of the drought experiment, precipitation is halved in the TFE simulation from 1 January 2002, in line with estimates of average exclusion rate.</p>
      <p id="d1e3101">Grid box GPP (gpp_gb) and grid box temperature at 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> above canopy height (t1p5m_gb) outputs from JULES are then used to drive the SUGAR model offline in each plot. In order to examine how SUGAR compares relative to JULES, it is parameterised using the first year of output data from JULES (i.e. the year before panels are put in the TFE plot) rather than observations from Caxiuanã, with the exception of an estimate of NSC pool size (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is necessary given JULES does not model NSC. The average GPP and biomass of the simulated forest is used to find average specific GPP, which is used to evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is evaluated by finding the average CUE of the simulated forest over this year, which is then used to evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Since the SUGAR simulations are offline (i.e. not coupled to a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model, DGVM), we assume that biomass (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) remains constant throughout the experiment. This is a necessary assumption that allows the simulations to be performed offline and the effect of the NSC pool to be examined in isolation. Finally, to test the sensitivity of SUGAR to the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, it is varied from 0.1 to 2.0.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>4.2.3</label><title>Model evaluation</title>
      <p id="d1e3198">Snapshot fluxes (NPP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, PCE) from JULES and SUGAR are evaluated against observations from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.60"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.61"/> for the periods 2005 and 2009–2011. Model growth output is evaluated against an observed time series of NPP from both plots. Observed NPP does not include root increment due to the difficulty in measuring total root growth at the plot-level scale. It is therefore calculated using the above-ground biomass (AGB) increment and total local litter fall <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75" id="paren.62"/>. Both model outputs are altered by removing simulated root increment. In SUGAR this is carried out using the allometric scaling within JULES. Biomass increment is calculated using tree trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) data and a number of allometric equations (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>. The DBH data were collected every 1–3 years for each tree in each plot using dendrometers between July 2000 and December 2014 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74" id="paren.63"/>. The error bars presented are the sum of measurement error from the litter fall data and the 95 % confidence intervals of the ensemble of allometric equations. Scaling NSC measurements to a whole-plant and whole-plot scale is difficult and has large associated errors <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="paren.64"/>. We therefore evaluate SUGAR primarily against integrated flux and biomass increment data.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3233">Allometric equations used to calculate above-ground biomass, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.97}[.97]?><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Author</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Equation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.65"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">42.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.242</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="text.66"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.134</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.67"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.323</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.546</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.68"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.76</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="text.69"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.333</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.933</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.122</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="text.70"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.67</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.333</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.933</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.122</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="text.71"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.499</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.148</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.207</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0281</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">
                        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.72"/>
                      </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.976</mml:mn><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.803</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.673</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0299</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.976</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0510307</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e3255"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Diameter at breast height (DBH); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Wood density; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are constants.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Sensitivity study over the Amazon Basin</title>
      <p id="d1e4079">In simulations of PCE across the Amazon Basin, the SUGAR model dampens the seasonal variations in both respiration and growth, relative to GPP, maintaining a less variable rate of PCE (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>). We present the coefficient of variation (CV) of the basin-averaged GPP and simulated PCE for each value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We also present the grid box bounds of CV, which is the coefficient of variation of the least and most variable grid boxes for each simulation.  The CV of the basin-average GPP data is 9.51 % (grid box bounds: 7.47 %–40.9 %; see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F8"/> in Appendix <xref ref-type="sec" rid="App1.Ch1.S1"/>). When the SUGAR model is initialised with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, effectively representing a model with no NSC, the CV of the basin-averaged PCE is 9.12 % (grid box bounds: 6.57 %–37.4 %; see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F8"/>). As <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases, the coefficient of variation decreases sharply across all grid boxes. At <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the CV of variation across the Amazon is 3.73 % (grid box bounds: 3.59 %–29.8 %; see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F8"/>). The dampening effect starts to saturate at larger values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the CV of simulated PCE decreases more slowly with increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from this point. At <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the CV of PCE across the Amazon is 3.54 % (bounds: 3.78 %–25.1 %; see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F8"/>). Finally, at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the CV of simulated basin PCE is 3.63 % (grid box bounds: 3.74 %–22.9 %; see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F8"/>). Increasing the effective size of the NSC pool also reduces the spatial variation in PCE seasonality across Amazonia. Relative to the wetter northern Amazon, the more seasonally dry southern Amazon experiences far greater seasonal variation in GPP. This pattern is mirrored in the seasonal variation in simulated PCE; however, with more NSC in the model the difference between PCE seasonality in the<?pagebreak page3596?> north and south declines, due to a larger decrease in seasonal variation in growth and respiration in the southern regions. This decline in seasonal variation is caused by an increase in dry season carbon expenditure and a decrease in the wet season carbon expenditure. The buffering effect is a consequence of the decoupling of respiration and growth from GPP, reflected in the decline in the mean correlation coefficient between GPP and PCE from 0.980 (bounds: 0.939 to 1.00) to 0.181 (bounds <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.501</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.997) from simulations with the 0 % to 8 % mass fraction of NSC (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>). With this decoupling effect there is also a shift in the primary driver of simulated PCE, from GPP (in the 0 % NSC mass fraction simulation) to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function (in the 8 % NSC mass fraction simulation). This is reflected in the increase in the mean correlation coefficient between simulated PCE and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E5"/>) in SUGAR from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0485</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (bounds: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.651</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.517) to 0.637 (bounds: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.456</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.956) in the 0 % to 8 % NSC mass fraction simulations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e4274">Simulated plant carbon expenditure (PCE) from SUGAR against gross primary productivity (GPP) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="paren.73"/> for different initialised carbohydrate content as a fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of grid box biomass <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.74"/>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e4302">The Pearson correlation coefficient of simulated plant carbon expenditure (PCE) and driving gross primary productivity (GPP) for different initialised carbohydrate contents as a fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of grid box biomass. This gives an indication of how important a driver GPP is for PCE in each grid box.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4325">The Pearson correlation coefficient of simulated plant carbon expenditure (PCE) and driving <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for different initialised carbohydrate contents as a fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of grid box biomass. This gives an indication of how important a driver the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function is for PCE in each grid box. </p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Simulations in a tropical moist forest</title>
      <p id="d1e4386">In the simulations of the control plot, in which the forest was not subject to any artificial drought stress, JULES and SUGAR produce similar results of long-term NPP accumulation (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>), which are both consistent with observations. By the end of the NPP observation period (17 December 2014), JULES predicts a total accumulated NPP of 155.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SUGAR 154.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgCha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Both results are consistent with observations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">161.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the site.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e4456">Accumulated net primary productivity at Caxiuanã in the <bold>(a)</bold> control plot and <bold>(b)</bold> TFE plot and <bold>(c)</bold> the difference between the drought and control forest (TFE–control). Observations are calculated as the accumulated sum of above-ground biomass increment change and total local litter fall <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75" id="paren.75"/>. The presented confidence intervals are the sum of the litter fall measurement error and the 95 % confidence intervals of biomass increment calculated from eight allometric equations using trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) data from Caxiuanã. The uncertainty envelope on SUGAR represents the maximum and minimum of an ensemble of simulations in which parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was varied between 0.1 and 2.0.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4492">There are some larger differences between JULES and SUGAR on annual timescales, but in general the models predict comparable annual mean values of control plot PCE, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and NPP (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). During the first 3 years of the experiment (2002, 2003, 2004), JULES predicts an annual mean PCE of 35.13 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SUGAR predicts <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34.79</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Both of these results lie within the confidence intervals of the observations from the site (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The two models differ most in the natural drought years of 2005, 2010 and 2015 in which predicted annual GPP is at its lowest. In 2005 JULES predicts a decrease (relative to the 2002–2004 period) in annual mean PCE to 33.32 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %), whereas SUGAR predicts an increase to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">36.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). The decrease in JULES PCE is caused by a decrease in predicted GPP in 2005. In SUGAR this decrease in GPP is buffered by NSC storage (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>), and an increase in the annual mean temperature drives the increase in predicted PCE. Both results are close to the observed value, although the SUGAR result is outside the observed confidence intervals by 0.64 %. In 2010 average annual rainfall was 1772.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the lowest in the 16 year period (ca. 25 % decrease on the 16-year mean 2324.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This causes a decline in predicted GPP on the control plot from 35.92 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2008 to 32.94 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2010. Consequently, JULES predicts a mean PCE of 33.60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the period 2009–2011, which lies below observed values. SUGAR is able to buffer the forest against the 2010 decline in GPP and allows elevated PCE in 2010 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">36.36</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.36</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) relative to 2008 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This allows SUGAR to maintain a mean PCE value over the 2009–2011 period of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">36.00</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is close to observations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e4933">Net primary productivity (NPP), autotrophic respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and plant carbon expenditure (PCE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NPP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the periods 2002–2004, 2005 and 2009–2011. Panels <bold>(a)</bold>, <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(e)</bold> are from the control plot and <bold>(b)</bold>, <bold>(d)</bold> and <bold>(f)</bold> are from the throughfall exclusion (TFE) plot. Model predictions from JULES and SUGAR are calculated by taking the mean of each flux over each period. Observations for 2005 are from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="text.76"/> and observations from 2009–2011 are from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="text.77"/>. Simulated photosynthesis in JULES responded almost instantly to the introduction of the panels on the TFE plot, which meant that NPP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and PCE changed significantly in both models between 2002 and 2005. To demonstrate this change we show predicted fluxes during the 2002–2004 period and from 2005. Observations for this period are not available to such a comprehensive degree as they are for 2005 and the 2009–2011 period. For this reason we compare the model predictions for 2002–2004 to the 2005 observations. This is reasonable in the control plot, where it is plausible that the forest was in steady state <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.78"/>, and thus fluxes from 2005 will be similar to those during the 2002–2004 period. In the TFE plot, while there were some significant changes in observed carbon fluxes during the first 3 years of the experiment (for example the production of leaves, flowers and fruits, and fine wood, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75 bib1.bibx61" id="altparen.79"/>), the forest largely resisted the effects of the drought during this period (significant increases in mortality were not seen until 2005, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74 bib1.bibx61" id="altparen.80"/>), and thus we can similarly expect fluxes from 2002–2004 to be comparable to those from 2005. Nonetheless, care should be taken with these comparisons in both plots. The error bars on SUGAR represent the maximum and minimum of an ensemble of simulations in which parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was varied between 0.1 and 2.0.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Simulating responses to drought</title>
      <?pagebreak page3597?><p id="d1e5047">In the TFE plot simulations, SUGAR and JULES diverge significantly in their predictions of NPP, PCE and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with SUGAR more accurately capturing observations than JULES (Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). JULES is able to capture NPP accumulation for approximately 1 year after the start of the drought treatment; however, from 2003 onwards, predicted NPP accumulation drops significantly below the confidence intervals of the observations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>). This is driven predominantly by a sharp decline in GPP in response to the declining water availability. SUGAR is able to capture NPP accumulation for much longer and predictions remain within the confidence intervals of the observations until the start of 2009 (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>). By the end of the observation period, JULES predicts a total of 60.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of accumulated and SUGAR 105.22 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Neither result lies within observed confidence intervals of the observations (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">126.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), although the SUGAR result represents a significant improvement relative to JULES.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3598?><p id="d1e5135">During the first 3 years of the experiment, SUGAR is able to buffer a significant decline in predicted GPP on the TFE plot, which drops from 34.90 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2001 to a minimum of 19.61 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2003 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). Since JULES does not contain an NSC storage component and PCE is equal to GPP, PCE in JULES also drops by 43.8 %, from 34.90 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2001 to 19.61 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2003. As a result JULES predicts a mean PCE value of 24.84 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the first 3 years of drought treatment (2002, 2003, 2004). These values are outside the confidence intervals of the observations and 26.7 % below the mean PCE value observed in the TFE plot (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). The SUGAR model is able to maintain PCE at a higher level than JULES during these first 3 years by drawing upon a mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.60</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of NSC each year to support growth and respiration (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>). This results in a mean PCE of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30.44</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the period 2002–2004, which lies within the observed confidence interval (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). The NSC buffering effect in SUGAR continues in 2005, with SUGAR expending <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.59</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.76</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> more carbon than JULES during that year. This means that the predicted annual mean PCE in SUGAR is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.82</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.76</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to 17.23 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in JULES. Both results lie below the lower bound of the observed confidence intervals (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>); however, the SUGAR result represents a significant improvement relative to JULES. In the later years of the drought simulations (2009 onwards), the NSC pool becomes significantly depleted (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>) and the buffering effect in SUGAR (described above) diminishes. Consequently, on annual timescales, the mean PCE in JULES and SUGAR during the 2009–2011 period are similar (20.76 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21.20</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.87</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively), although the allocation of carbon to respiration and growth is different, with SUGAR expending more (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.70</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgCha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) carbon on growth than JULES (3.06 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This difference in allocation allows SUGAR to predict the observed NPP with more skill than JULES; however, it means that respiration predictions are reduced relative to JULES and the observations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e5629">The effect of the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in SUGAR on simulated non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) as a fraction of total carbon biomass in <bold>(a)</bold> the control plot and <bold>(b)</bold> the TFE plot. The mean, maximum and minimum from an ensemble of simulations where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is varied between 0.1 and 2.0 are presented.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3599?><sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e5685">SUGAR alters the relationship between photosynthesis and carbon expenditure. This has implications for simulations of both extreme and more gradual changes in climatic and meteorological conditions. By decoupling PCE from GPP, SUGAR creates a buffering effect that decreases the seasonal variation in carbon expenditure, even in ecosystems where the variation in GPP is already low. As we increase the levels of stored substrate within our simulations, the variability in PCE declines, due to an increased ability to maintain respiration and growth when GPP is low, and replenishment of the NSC pool when GPP is high. This effect is most pronounced in the semi-arid regions of the southern Amazon where there is a strong seasonal cycle in GPP (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F9"/>), corresponding to a strong seasonal pattern of precipitation. Semi-arid regions provide the largest contribution to the global carbon sink anomaly, in part due to this high variability in GPP <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx71 bib1.bibx3" id="paren.81"/>. To represent this contribution, land surface models must capture the response of vegetation to the climate variability experienced in these regions now and in the future. SUGAR provides a mechanistic approach to achieve this by simulating respiration and growth as a separate function to GPP.  Given the strong evidence from observations that NPP and respiration do not have the same seasonal and climatic responses as GPP <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54 bib1.bibx41 bib1.bibx29" id="paren.82"/>, accurately predicting future variability in atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.83"/> will be reliant on a sub-model such as SUGAR that can allow this decoupling to occur. Research demonstrating the importance of highly seasonal arid regions highlights the necessity of substrate-based approaches in large-scale ecosystem models and should motivate the community to focus on improving our understanding of NSCs and how to model them.</p>
      <p id="d1e5710">The sensitivity of the biosphere to climate change has large impacts on the future climate. For example, large losses of tropical forest carbon may represent a tipping point in the climate system that could have highly adverse and irreversible consequences for the global climate <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.84"/>. However, both the nature and likelihood of such a tipping point is uncertain. Feedbacks between the climate and the carbon cycle mean that small perturbations in the state of the biosphere can make significant changes to the future state of the climate <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx36" id="paren.85"/>. Small changes in the sensitivity of a tropical forest to climate change may be the difference between the continued absorption of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by ecosystems such as the Amazon and the severe die-back scenarios predicted by some models <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49 bib1.bibx70" id="paren.86"/>. Therefore, the difference between a forest that is able to buffer the effects of even a short drought or reduction in productivity and a forest that is not, may be significant at a global context in the future, even if it appears small in the present day. Non-conservative propagation of perturbations in the state of vegetated ecosystems contributes to large uncertainty in climate models <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="paren.87"/>, which greatly reduces our ability to constrain future climate possibilities and tipping points within the carbon cycle. Accurately representing the response of forest biomass, particularly in the tropics, to changes in climate is crucial to reducing this uncertainty and is a major goal of the climate and land surface modelling community. The buffering effect demonstrated in SUGAR may have an indirect yet large impact on the predictions of future climate by LSMs and provide a more realistic representation of forest sensitivity to climate.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3600?><p id="d1e5736">As well as a buffering of carbon expenditure, SUGAR also enables a transition of the primary driver of growth and respiration. With little or no carbohydrate, carbon expenditure in SUGAR is driven predominantly by the rate of photosynthesis (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>). Carbon is used by the ecosystem as soon as it is assimilated, meaning that the rate of expenditure is highly correlated with the rate of photosynthesis. This is often described as “source-driven carbon dynamics” meaning that photosynthesis is the key driving flux in determining the carbon balance of the ecosystem. “Source-driven carbon dynamics” are at the centre of many LSMs, including JULES. As more carbohydrate is added to the ecosystem in SUGAR, temperature becomes the predominant driver of PCE via the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E5"/>, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>). As more carbon is stored, growth and respiration become less carbon limited and more controlled by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function within SUGAR. This shift can be seen as a transition towards “sink-driven carbon dynamics”. Under the theory of sink-driven carbon dynamics, environmental variables such as temperature and water availability exert a direct control over carbon expenditure that can be larger than that of photosynthesis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx97 bib1.bibx67 bib1.bibx32" id="paren.88"/>. Processes such as end-product inhibition <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx83" id="paren.89"/>, in which photosynthesis is inhibited by an excess of assimilate in the leaves, mean that growth and respiration may even exert indirect control over the rate of photosynthesis. The result is that “sink” fluxes (i.e respiration and growth) driven by environmental variables are the predominant determinants of ecosystem carbon balance. Since the NSC pool in SUGAR does not exert any control over photosynthesis (e.g. via end-product inhibition), the behaviour of SUGAR here cannot be described as truly sink driven. However, SUGAR provides a framework that allows processes such as end-product inhibition to be implemented and thus provides the opportunity to represent both sink- and source-driven dynamics in LSMs. This allows a greater representation of how the limiting factors of growth and respiration interact with and respond to a changing climate.</p>
      <p id="d1e5774">Using the Caxiuanã control simulations we demonstrate that SUGAR and JULES predict very similar long-term NPP accumulation in the natural climate conditions of a tropical moist forest. However, there are larger differences between SUGAR and JULES on an annual timescale, due to the buffering of the natural variability in GPP by SUGAR. These results further highlight the importance of substrate-based modelling to better capture the responses to natural variation, even under current climate conditions and without extreme events <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.90"/>. In the TFE plot, SUGAR makes significant improvements to the prediction of ecosystem carbon fluxes, particularly for accumulated NPP. This improvement is caused by a combination of two processes that occur in SUGAR and that are not present in JULES. The first process is the utilisation of the NSC pool during the early stages of the experiment. SUGAR expends a mean 5.53 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> more carbon than is assimilated through photosynthesis in the first 3 years of drought (2002–2004) and a further 5.80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 2005. This allows an increase in both NPP and respiration relative to JULES and is consistent with the analysis in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="text.91"/>, which suggests the TFE plot was expending <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> more than it was accumulating in 2005, implying that NSC stores were being depleted in response to the drought. The second process is the down regulation of respiration in response to the depleting NSC pool. In the JULES simulations, photosynthesis declines much faster than respiration and, since growth is equal to GPP–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in JULES, this means that NPP drops significantly as GPP declines in response to the drought. The result of this effect is that in 2 years (2005 and 2007) the predicted annual mean NPP by JULES is negative. Negative NPP is generally considered to be unrealistic, particularly over the timescale of a year <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx76" id="paren.92"/>, and since JULES does not contain a labile carbon pool to support the deficit, missing carbon is taken from the structural pool. The physical interpretation of this is that trees in JULES respire away their structural carbon and shrink. While there is some evidence of recycling and remobilisation of structural compounds, the magnitude of structural carbon being allocated to respiration (via the resulting negative NPP) in these JULES simulations is not realistic. In SUGAR, respiration declines due to the depletion of the NSC pool. This down-regulation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> means that a larger proportion of instantaneous GPP is available for NPP, resulting in larger predictions of NPP in SUGAR than JULES, despite similar estimates of total PCE. While this latter process aids the prediction of NPP in SUGAR, it should be noted that observations from Caxiuanã actually indicate an increase in TFE plot respiration between 2005 and 2011 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx25" id="paren.93"/>. SUGAR is currently unable to capture this increase and this is likely due to the simplicity of the assumptions made within the model. For example, we have assumed that plant growth is directly dependent on carbohydrate availability and temperature only. Water stress may reduce plant growth in SUGAR but only indirectly by inhibiting photosynthesis and causing a decrease in available carbon. However, in reality plant growth can be affected directly by decreasing water availability through the inhibition of cambial expansion <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9 bib1.bibx47 bib1.bibx12" id="paren.94"/>. This decline in growth may even occur before declines in photosynthesis, which can cause a build-up of NSC and eventually result in an increase in respiration <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.95"/>. We are not suggesting that this specific process explains the observed increases in respiration on the drought plot at Caxiuanaã, but such interactions between NSC utilisation and the environment are likely to have been important during the TFE experiment. Neither SUGAR nor JULES are able to capture these processes currently. However, by implementing SUGAR within JULES we create a basis upon which we can start to represent these interactions and continue to improve predictions of forest responses to drought.</p>
      <p id="d1e5892">The ability of SUGAR to accurately capture PCE responses to drought in these simulations is also somewhat limited by the GPP used to run it. Photosynthesis in JULES has a high sensitivity to reductions in soil moisture <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43 bib1.bibx98" id="paren.96"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. In the Caxiuanã simulations JULES predicts an average decline in annual GPP of 4.42 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 2001 to 2005 in the TFE plot. Combining the observed PCE rates in the TFE plot with the predicted GPP by JULES would imply that the forest is using an average of 10.96 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon more than it is assimilating in the first 4 years. This would then imply that the forest has access to at least 43.86 MgC ha<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of NSC, ca. 22 % of estimated forest biomass. Such a high NSC content is unlikely for tropical forests, which are more likely to have reserves close to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx99" id="paren.97"/>. The other more likely explanation is that JULES is overestimating the decline in photosynthesis in response to the drought. To test this, we artificially reduced drought stress in JULES by 50 % and repeated the Caxiuanã simulations (Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F12"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"/>). This improved predictions of PCE in both models,<?pagebreak page3601?> supporting the hypothesis that JULES overestimates the sensitivity of photosynthesis to drought at this site. The recent work to improve stomatal responses to drought stress <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx62 bib1.bibx31 bib1.bibx82" id="paren.98"/> has the potential to significantly improve GPP predictions in LSMs such as JULES. However, there is a clear link between hydraulics and labile carbon storage, given stomatal closure comes at the cost of a reduction in carbon assimilation. The ability of a plant to store and use labile carbon is crucial to its ability to survive and recover from drought-induced stomatal closure <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx78 bib1.bibx66 bib1.bibx94" id="paren.99"/>. Without including at least simple representations of NSC storage, the potential of this recent work to improve the representation of stomatal behaviour in response to drought in LSMs is unlikely to be realised.</p>
      <p id="d1e5988">SUGAR is a purposefully simple model of NSC storage and is missing some key processes known to be important in defining the complexities of NSC storage and use within a plant. A more complex NSC model might, for example, distinguish between starch and sugar pools or represent multiple pools for each plant organ and actively control the input or output of NSC into pools <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59 bib1.bibx45" id="paren.100"/>. However, such models would likely require representation of substrate transport between pools and the scaling of NSC data to the level of trees and forests. Recent advancements in measurement protocols may allow these datasets to be reliably collected <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.101"/>, however, previously the level of uncertainty on such figures has been up to 400 % <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx73" id="paren.102"/>. As a result, comprehensive NSC datasets, measured through time in response to climatic variations and across enough biomes to allow all model PFTs to be evaluated, are currently not available.  Therefore, this is not a currently viable way to constrain model output. SUGAR is designed to break the direct link between PCE and GPP found in many LSMs and to provide more mechanistic predictions of growth and respiration. It can be parameterised, initialised and evaluated with data that is commonly collected across the globe – biomass, GPP, and temperature; CUE (to find <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>); and respiration and NPP (for evaluation). It also requires an input of initialised NSC fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is not easily measured for an ecosystem, although values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be constrained within sensible bounds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx99" id="paren.103"/>. It may also be possible to use SUGAR as a tool to further constrain observed values of NSC content by conducting sensitivity studies of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Given the existing level of knowledge, it is more robust and realistic to use a simple model such as SUGAR, which can be evaluated against more easily available observations such as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, PCE, NPP and GPP. As the accuracy and spatial extent of NSC data grows, models such as SUGAR can act as a simple skeleton that allows new processes to be implemented into LSMs to more accurately represent the complexity of plant carbon storage and use.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e6064">We have developed a simple model of NSC storage that is designed to be integrated into an LSM. The model makes significant changes to the variability of growth and respiration predictions in both extreme and more stable climatic conditions. This has large implications for simulations of future climate given the importance of predicting the variability of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations. The model also allows a more mechanistic representation of the limiting factors of carbon expenditure, which may become increasingly important as the climate changes in the future. Due to the simplicity of the model, it is easily parameterised using pre-existing data and does not require complex datasets of NSC storage that are currently unavailable. This makes the model attractive since it can be easily integrated into LSMs without introducing unreasonable uncertainty in parameter values. The magnitude of the change demonstrates the importance of representing carbon storage in LSMs, and we hope this will motivate both the modelling and empirical communities to further develop our understanding and model representation of NSC dynamics.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<?pagebreak page3602?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>Derivation of model parameters</title>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>A1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Derivation of $\phi$}?><title>Derivation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e6104">We start by finding the rate of change of NSC mass fraction, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in terms of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E18" content-type="numbered"><label>A1</label><mml:math id="M300" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          We consider the case where the NSC mass fraction is constant and the left-hand side of Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E18"/>) is zero. In reality the NSC mass fraction of forest will not be exactly constant and variations in environmental variables will cause changes in NSC stocks. However, for a non-stressed forest it is a good assumption that over a prolonged period, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the NSC mass fraction will be roughly constant. For example, we can assume that over the course of 1 year, a non-stressed forest will use as much carbon as it assimilates and consequently will end the year with roughly the same NSC stock with which it started. This means that we can integrate Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E18"/>) over this period and set the left-hand side equal to zero:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E19" content-type="numbered"><label>A2</label><mml:math id="M302" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Since we are considering a forest in steady state, we can neglect the rate of change of structural biomass, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E20" content-type="numbered"><label>A3</label><mml:math id="M304" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          We then use the Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) for the rate of change of NSC:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E21" content-type="numbered"><label>A4</label><mml:math id="M305" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          To evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> we use the equation for total carbohydrate utilisation and rearrange it as follows:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E22" content-type="numbered"><label>A5</label><mml:math id="M307" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          We divide both sides by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and assume that this can be approximated as follows:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E23" content-type="numbered"><label>A6</label><mml:math id="M309" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Where the asterisk denotes a temporal average over the period <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. i.e for variable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E24" content-type="numbered"><label>A7</label><mml:math id="M312" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Rearranging, we find the expression for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E25" content-type="numbered"><label>A8</label><mml:math id="M314" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          By definition, the average NSC mass fraction is equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Using this and Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E6"/>), this becomes
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E26" content-type="numbered"><label>A9</label><mml:math id="M316" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          This means that to evaluate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, we require an estimate of average specific GPP and average temperature over some reasonable stable unstressed period. If SUGAR is used at a single site these can be evaluated directly using GPP, biomass and temperature data where available. If these data are not available then the specific GPP can be approximated as the steady state carbon residency time, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.104"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>, and the temperature can found using global climatology data over the same period.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>A2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Derivation of $\alpha$}?><title>Derivation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e6893">We rewrite Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E21"/>) as follows:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E27" content-type="numbered"><label>A10</label><mml:math id="M320" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Again we divide by the integration period, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and assume this can be written as follows:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E28" content-type="numbered"><label>A11</label><mml:math id="M322" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          hence
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E29" content-type="numbered"><label>A12</label><mml:math id="M323" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Similarly using Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E21"/>), we find
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E30" content-type="numbered"><label>A13</label><mml:math id="M324" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Dividing Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E29"/>) by Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.E30"/>) gives the following equation:
            <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E31" content-type="numbered"><label>A14</label><mml:math id="M325" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is the time-averaged carbon use efficiency of the non-stressed forest over the period <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e7116">The coefficient of variation of <bold>(a)</bold> GPP <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="paren.105"/> and <bold>(b–f)</bold> simulated plant carbon expenditure (PCE) for different initialised carbohydrate content as a fraction of grid box biomass (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d1e7150">The mean seasonal trend of simulated plant carbon expenditure (PCE) and forcing gross primary productivity (GPP) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx69" id="paren.106"/> for each grid box in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> SUGAR simulations. The map key shows which plot corresponds to which grid box.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A3}?><label>Figure A3</label><caption><p id="d1e7182">Simulated plant carbon expenditure (PCE) from JULES and SUGAR for <bold>(a)</bold> the control and <bold>(b)</bold> the throughfall exclusion (TFE) plots at Caxiuanã. A sensitivity study on the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in SUGAR was carried out, and the maximum, minimum and ensemble mean PCE are presented. Time series observations of PCE from the site were not available.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A4}?><label>Figure A4</label><caption><p id="d1e7216">Simulated plant respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) from JULES and SUGAR for <bold>(a)</bold> the control and <bold>(b)</bold> the throughfall exclusion (TFE) plots at Caxiuanã. A sensitivity study on the parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in SUGAR was carried out, and the maximum, minimum and ensemble mean R are presented. Time series observations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the site were not available.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A5}?><label>Figure A5</label><caption><p id="d1e7266">Accumulated net primary productivity at Caxiuanã in the <bold>(a)</bold> control plot and <bold>(b)</bold> TFE plot and <bold>(c)</bold> the difference between the drought and control forest (TFE–control). Soil moisture stress has been artificially reduced in JULES by 50 %, and the resulting GPP has been used to drive SUGAR. Observations are calculated as the accumulated sum of biomass increment change and local litter fall <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75" id="paren.107"/>. The presented confidence intervals are the sum of the litter fall measurement error and the 95 % confidence intervals of biomass increment calculated from eight allometric equations using trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) data from Caxiuanã.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A6}?><label>Figure A6</label><caption><p id="d1e7292">Net primary productivity (NPP), autotrophic respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and plant carbon expenditure (PCE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NPP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the periods 2002–2004, 2005 and 2009–2011. Panels <bold>(a)</bold>, <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(e)</bold> are from the control plot and <bold>(b)</bold>, <bold>(d)</bold> and <bold>(f)</bold> are from the throughfall exclusion (TFE) plot. Soil moisture stress has been artificially reduced in JULES by 50 %, and the resulting GPP has been used to drive SUGAR. Model predictions from JULES and SUGAR are calculated by taking the mean of each flux over each period. Observations for 2005 are from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="text.108"/>, and observations from 2009–2011 are from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="text.109"/>. Simulated photosynthesis in JULES responded almost instantly to the introduction of the panels on the TFE plot, which meant that NPP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and PCE changed significantly in both models between 2002 and 2005. To demonstrate this change we show predicted fluxes during the 2002–2004 period and from 2005. Observations for this period are not available to such a comprehensive degree as they are for 2005 and the 2009–2011 period. For this reason we compare the model predictions for 2002–2004 to the 2005 observations. This is reasonable in the control plot, where it is plausible that the forest was in steady state <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.110"/>, and thus fluxes from 2005 will be similar to those during the 2002–2004 period. In the TFE plot, while there were some significant changes in observed carbon fluxes during the first 3 years of the experiment (for example the production of leaves, flowers and fruits, and fine wood <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx75 bib1.bibx61" id="altparen.111"/>), the forest largely resisted the effects of the drought during this period (significant increases in mortality were not seen until 2005 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx74 bib1.bibx61" id="altparen.112"/>), and thus we can similarly expect fluxes from 2002–2004 to be comparable to those from 2005. Nonetheless, care should be taken with these comparisons in both plots.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/3589/2020/bg-17-3589-2020-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>
</app>

<?pagebreak page3607?><app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{B}?><label>Appendix B</label><title/>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S2.T3"><?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?><?xmltex \currentcnt{B1}?><label>Table B1</label><caption><p id="d1e7399">Definitions of symbols.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Symbol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Units</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Definition</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Saturation parameter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NSC content</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Structural carbon content</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Equilibrium NSC mass fraction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function for growth and respiration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Plant growth</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Specific growth rate</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value for plant respiration and growth</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Growth respiration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Maintenance respiration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Specific rate of maintenance respiration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Total plant respiration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Temperature</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Plant carbon expenditure</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Growth yield coefficient</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ratio of plant growth to PCE</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Net primary productivity</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Π</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Gross primary productivity</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">s</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ecosystem carbon residency time</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Specific rate of carbohydrate utilisation</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e8080">A model example of SUGAR for a single site and set-up to run at Caxiuanã using output from JULES is available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3547613" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.3547613</ext-link> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="altparen.113"/>). For further information or code please contact sj326@exeter.ac.uk.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e8089">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3589-2020-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3589-2020-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e8098">SJ, LR, PC, DH and ABH developed the SUGAR model code, and SJ carried out the simulations. JULES simulations were conducted by SJ with contributions from ABH and KW. GPP data from GOSAT were provided by NCP. Data from the throughfall exclusion experiment in Caxiuanã were provided by ACLdC, PM and LR. SJ prepared the manuscript with contributions from all co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e8104">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e8111">Simon Jones is supported by a NERC GW4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Doctoral Training Partnership studentship from the Natural Environmental Research Council (NE/L00243411). Lucy Rowland was supported by the UK NERC independent fellowship grant NE/N014022/1. Karina Williams was supported by the Newton Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership Brazil (CSSP Brazil). Patrick Meir was supported by NERC NE/N006852/1 and ARC  DP170104091. Maurizio Mencuccini was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) via competitive grants CGL2013-46808-R and CGL2017-89149-C2-1-R. Anna B. Harper received funding from EPSRC Fellowship EP/N030141/1. Junjie Liu and Nicholas C. Parazoo are supported by the JPL-Caltech President's and Director's Research &amp; Development Fund.
Deborah Hemming was funded under the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (HCCP) funded by BEIS and Defra.
Peter Cox was supported by the European Commission, H2020 Research Infrastructures (ECCLES (grant no. 742472) and  CRESCENDO  (grant no. 641816)).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e8124">This paper was edited by Christopher Still and reviewed by Martin De Kauwe and Thomas Pugh.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Adams et al.(2013)</label><?label Adams13?><mixed-citation>Adams, H. D., Germino, M. J., Breshears, D. D., Barron-Gafford, G. A.,
Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Zou, C. B., and Huxman, T. E.: Nonstructural leaf
carbohydrate dynamics of Pinus edulis during drought-induced tree mortality
reveal role for carbon metabolism in mortality mechanism, New Phytol.,
197, 1142–1151, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12102</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Adams et al.(2017)</label><?label Adams17?><mixed-citation>Adams, H. D., Zeppel, M. J. B., Anderegg, W. R. L., Hartmann, H.,
Landhäusser, S. M., Tissue, D. T., Huxman, T. E., Hudson, P. J., Franz,
T. E., Allen, C. D., Anderegg, L. D. L., Barron-Gafford, G. A., Beerling,
D. J., Breshears, D. D., Brodribb, T. J., Bugmann, H., Cobb, R. C., Collins,
A. D., Dickman, L. T., Duan, H., Ewers, B. E., Galiano, L., Galvez, D. A.,
Garcia-Forner, N., Gaylord, M. L., Germino, M. J., Gessler, A., Hacke, U. G.,
Hakamada, R., Hector, A., Jenkins, M. W., Kane, J. M., Kolb, T. E., Law,
D. J., Lewis, J. D., Limousin, J.-M., Love, D. M., Macalady, A. K.,
Martínez-Vilalta, J., Mencuccini, M., Mitchell, P. J., Muss, J. D.,
O'Brien, M. J., O'Grady, A. P., Pangle, R. E., Pinkard, E. A., Piper, F. I.,
Plaut, J. A., Pockman, W. T., Quirk, J., Reinhardt, K., Ripullone, F., Ryan,
M. G., Sala, A., Sevanto, S., Sperry, J. S., Vargas, R., Vennetier, M., Way,
D. A., Xu, C., Yepez, E. A., and McDowell, N. G.: A multi-species synthesis
of physiological mechanisms in drought-induced tree mortality, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 1285–1291, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0248-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41559-017-0248-x</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Ahlstr{\"{o}}m et~al.(2015)}}?><label>Ahlström et al.(2015)</label><?label Ahlstrom15?><mixed-citation>Ahlström, A., Raupach, M. R., Schurgers, G., Smith, B., Arneth, A., Jung,
M., Reichstein, M., Canadell, J. G., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A. K., Kato,
E., Poulter, B., Sitch, S., Stocker, B. D., Viovy, N., Wang, Y. P.,
Wiltshire, A., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, N.: The dominant role of semi-arid
ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sink, Science, 348,
895–899, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aaa1668</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Anderegg and Anderegg(2013)</label><?label AndereggAnderegg13?><mixed-citation>Anderegg, W. R. and Anderegg, L. D.: Hydraulic and carbohydrate changes in
experimental drought-induced mortality of saplings in two conifer species,
Tree Physiol., 33, 252–260, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/treephys/tpt016</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Ara\'{u}jo et~al.(1999)}}?><label>Araújo et al.(1999)</label><?label Araujo99?><mixed-citation>Araújo, T. M., Higuchi, N., and Andrade de Carvalho Júnior, J. a.:
Comparison of formulae for biomass content determination in a tropical rain
forest site in the state of Pará, Brazil, Forest Ecol. Manage.,
117, 43–52, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00470-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00470-8</ext-link>,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Avitabile et al.(2016)</label><?label Avitabile16?><mixed-citation>Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L.,
Asner, G. P., Armston, J., Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., Bayol, N., Berry, N. J.,
Boeckx, P., de Jong, B. H. J., DeVries, B., Girardin, C. A. J., Kearsley, E.,
Lindsell, J. A., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lucas, R., Malhi, Y., Morel, A.,
Mitchard, E. T. A., Nagy, L., Qie, L., Quinones, M. J., Ryan, C. M., Ferry,
S. J. W., Sunderland, T., Laurin, G. V., Gatti, R. C., Valentini, R.,
Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A., and Willcock, S.: An integrated pan-tropical
biomass map using multiple reference datasets, Glob. Change Biol., 22,
1406–1420, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13139</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Baker et al.(2008)</label><?label Baker08?><mixed-citation>Baker, I. T., Prihodko, L., Denning, A. S., Goulden, M., Miller, S., and
da Rocha, H. R.: Seasonal drought stress in the Amazon: Reconciling models
and observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113, G00B01,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000644" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JG000644</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Baker et al.(2004)</label><?label Baker04?><mixed-citation>Baker, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Malhi, Y., Almeida, S., Arroyo, L., Di Fiore,
A., Erwin, T., Killeen, T. J., Laurance, S. G., Laurance, W. F., Lewis,
S. L., Lloyd, J., Monteagudo, A., Neill, D. A., Patiño, S., Pitman, N.
C. A., M. Silva, J. N., and Vásquez Martínez, R.: Variation in wood density
determines spatial patterns inAmazonian forest biomass, Glob. Change
Biol., 10, 545–562, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00751.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00751.x</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Balducci et al.(2013)</label><?label Balducci13?><mixed-citation>Balducci, L., Deslauriers, A., Giovannelli, A., Rossi, S., and Rathgeber,
C. B.: Effects of temperature and water deficit on cambial activity and
woody ring features in Picea mariana saplings, Tree Physiol., 33,
1006–1017, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt073" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/treephys/tpt073</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3609?><ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Bastos et al.(2018)</label><?label Bastos18?><mixed-citation>Bastos, A., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Chen, C., Mialon, A., Wigneron,
J.-P., Arora, V. K., Briggs, P. R., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Chevallier,
F., Cheng, L., Delire, C., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Joos, F., Kato, E.,
Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J. R., Myneni, R., Nabel, J. E. M. S.,
Pongratz, J., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Tian, H., van Eck,
C., Viovy, N., Vuichard, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A., Yang, J., Zaehle,
S., Zeng, N., and Zhu, D.: Impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on the
terrestrial carbon cycle constrained by bottom-up and top-down approaches,
Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 373,
20170304, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0304" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rstb.2017.0304</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Best et al.(2011)</label><?label JULES1?><mixed-citation>Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Boyer(1970)</label><?label Boyer70?><mixed-citation>Boyer, J. S.: Leaf Enlargement and Metabolic Rates in Corn, Soybean, and
Sunflower at Various Leaf Water Potentials, Plant Physiol., 46, 233–235,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.46.2.233" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1104/pp.46.2.233</ext-link>, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Brown(1997)</label><?label Brown97?><mixed-citation>
Brown, S.: Estimating Biomass and Biomass Change of Tropical Forests: A Primer,
FAO Forestry Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 134 pp., 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Carvalhais et al.(2014)</label><?label Carvalhais14?><mixed-citation>Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens, B.,
Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson, J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global
covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems,
Nature, 514, 213–217, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature13731</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Carvalho et al.(1998)</label><?label Carvalho98?><mixed-citation>Carvalho Jr., J. A., Higuchi, N., Araújo, T. M., and Santos, J. C.: Combustion
completeness in a rainforest clearing experiment in Manaus, Brazil, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 103, 13195–13199,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00172" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD00172</ext-link>,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Chambers et al.(2001)</label><?label Chambers01?><mixed-citation>Chambers, J. Q., dos Santos, J., Ribeiro, R. J., and Higuchi, N.: Tree damage,
allometric relationships, and above-ground net primary production in central
Amazon forest, Forest Ecol. Manage., 152, 73–84,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00591-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00591-0</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Chambers et al.(2004)</label><?label Chambers04?><mixed-citation>Chambers, J. Q., Tribuzy, E. S., Toledo, L. C., Crispim, B. F., Higuchi, N.,
Santos, J. d., Araújo, A. C., Kruijt, B., Nobre, A. D., and Trumbore, S. E.:
Respiration from a tropical forest ecosystem: partitioning of sources and low
carbon use efficiency, Ecol. Appl., 14, 72–88,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1890/01-6012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1890/01-6012</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Chave et al.(2005)</label><?label Chave05?><mixed-citation>Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, J. Q., Eamus, D.,
Fölster, H., Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J. P., Nelson,
B. W., Ogawa, H., Puig, H., Riéra, B., and Yamakura, T.: Tree allometry and
improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests,
Oecologia, 145, 87–99, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Chave et al.(2014)</label><?label Chave14?><mixed-citation>Chave, J., Réjou-Méchain, M., Búrquez, A., Chidumayo, E., Colgan, M. S.,
Delitti, W. B., Duque, A., Eid, T., Fearnside, P. M., Goodman, R. C., Henry,
M., Martínez-Yrízar, A., Mugasha, W. A., Muller-Landau, H. C., Mencuccini,
M., Nelson, B. W., Ngomanda, A., Nogueira, E. M., Ortiz-Malavassi, E.,
Pélissier, R., Ploton, P., Ryan, C. M., Saldarriaga, J. G., and Vieilledent,
G.: Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of
tropical trees, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 3177–3190,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12629</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Clark et al.(2011)</label><?label JULES2?><mixed-citation>Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–722, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Corlett(2016)</label><?label Corlett16?><mixed-citation>Corlett, R. T.: The Impacts of Droughts in Tropical Forests, Trends Plant
Sci., 21, 584–593, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.02.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.tplants.2016.02.003</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Cox et al.(2000)</label><?label Cox2000?><mixed-citation>Cox, P., Betts, R. A., Jones, C., Spall, S. A., and Totterdell, I. J.:
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled
model, Nature, 408, 184–187, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35041539" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/35041539</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Cox et al.(2013)</label><?label Cox13?><mixed-citation>Cox, P. M., Pearson, D., Booth, B. B., Friedlingstein, P., Huntingford, C.,
Jones, C. D., and Luke, C. M.: Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate
change constrained by carbon dioxide variability, Nature, 494, 341–344,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11882" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature11882</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>da Costa et al.(2010)</label><?label daCosta10?><mixed-citation>da Costa, A. C. L., Galbraith, D., Almeida, S., Portela, B. T. T., da Costa,
M., de Athaydes Silva Junior, J., Braga, A. P., de Gonçalves, P. H. L.,
de Oliveira, A. A., Fisher, R., Phillips, O. L., Metcalfe, D. B., Levy, P.,
and Meir, P.: Effect of 7 yr of experimental drought on vegetation dynamics
and biomass storage of an eastern Amazonian rainforest, New Phytol., 187,
579–591, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03309.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03309.x</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>da Costa et al.(2014)</label><?label daCosta13?><mixed-citation>da Costa, A. C. L., Metcalfe, D. B., Doughty, C. E., de Oliveira, A. A., Neto,
G. F., da Costa, M. C., Silva Junior, J. d. A., Aragão, L. E., Almeida, S.,
Galbraith, D. R., Rowland, L. M., Meir, P., and Malhi, Y.: Ecosystem
respiration and net primary productivity after 8–10 years of experimental
through-fall reduction in an eastern Amazon forest, Plant Ecol.
Divers., 7, 7–24, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2013.798366" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/17550874.2013.798366</ext-link>,  2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>De Kauwe et al.(2014)</label><?label DeKauwe14?><mixed-citation>De Kauwe, M. G., Medlyn Belinda, E., Zaehle, S., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C.,
Wang, Y., Luo, Y., Jain, A. K., El‐Masri, B., Hickler, T., Wårlind, D.,
Weng, E., Parton, W. J., Thornton, P. E., Wang, S., Prentice, I. C., Asao,
S., Smith, B., McCarthy, H. R., Iversen, C. M., Hanson, P. J., Warren, J. M.,
Oren, R., and Norby, R. J.: Where does the carbon go? A model–data
intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two
temperate forest free‐air <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> enrichment sites, New Phytol., 203,
883–899, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12847" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12847</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Dewar et al.(1999)</label><?label Dewar99?><mixed-citation>Dewar, R. C., Medlyn, B. E., and Mcmurtrie, R. E.: Acclimation of the
respiration/photosynthesis ratio to temperature: insights from a model,
Glob. Change Biol., 5, 615–622, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00253.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00253.x</ext-link>,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Dietze et al.(2014)</label><?label Dietze14?><mixed-citation>Dietze, M. C., Sala, A., Carbone, M. S., Czimczik, C. I., Mantooth, J. A.,
Richardson, A. D., and Vargas, R.: Nonstructural Carbon in Woody Plants,
Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 65, 667–687,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040054" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040054</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Doughty et al.(2015a)</label><?label Doughty15b?><mixed-citation>Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B., Girardin, C. A. J., Amezquita, F. F., Durand,
L., Huaraca Huasco, W., Silva-Espejo, J. E., Araujo-Murakami, A., da Costa,
M. C., da Costa, A. C. L., Rocha, W., Meir, P., Galbraith, D., and Malhi, Y.:
Source and sink carbon dynamics and carbon allocation in the Amazon basin,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 29, 645–655, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB005028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GB005028</ext-link>,
2015a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Doughty et al.(2015b)</label><?label Doughty15a?><mixed-citation>Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B., Girardin, C. A. J., Amézquita, F. F.,
Cabrera, D. G., Huasco, W. H., Silva-Espe<?pagebreak page3610?>jo, J. E., Araujo-Murakami, A.,
da Costa, M. C., Rocha, W., Feldpausch, T. R., Mendoza, A. L. M., da Costa,
A. C. L., Meir, P., Phillips, O. L., and Malhi, Y.: Drought impact on forest
carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia, Nature, 519, 78–82,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14213" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature14213</ext-link>, 2015b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Eller et al.(2018)</label><?label Eller18?><mixed-citation>Eller, C. B., Rowland, L., Oliveira, R. S., Bittencourt, P. R. L., Barros,
F. V., da Costa, A. C. L., Meir, P., Friend, A. D., Mencuccini, M., Sitch,
S., and Cox, P.: Modelling tropical forest responses to drought and El Niño
with a stomatal optimization model based on xylem hydraulics, Philos.
T. R. Soc. B, 373, 20170315,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0315" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rstb.2017.0315</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Fatichi et al.(2014)</label><?label Fatichi14?><mixed-citation>Fatichi, S., Leuzinger, S., and Körner, C.: Moving beyond photosynthesis: from
carbon source to sink-driven vegetation modeling, New Phytol., 201,
1086–1095, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12614" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12614</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Fatichi et al.(2016)</label><?label Fatichi16?><mixed-citation>Fatichi, S., Pappas, C., and Ivanov, V. Y.: Modeling plant–water
interactions: an ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale,
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3, 327–368, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1125" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wat2.1125</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Fatichi et al.(2019)</label><?label Fatichi19?><mixed-citation>Fatichi, S., Pappas, C., Zscheischler, J., and Leuzinger, S.: Modelling carbon
sources and sinks in terrestrial vegetation, New Phytol., 221, 652–668,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15451" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.15451</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Fisher et al.(2007)</label><?label Fisher07?><mixed-citation>Fisher, R. A., Williams, M., Da Costa, A. L., Malhi, Y., Da Costa, R. F.,
Almeida, S., and Meir, P.: The response of an Eastern Amazonian rain forest
to drought stress: results and modelling analyses from a throughfall
exclusion experiment, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 2361–2378,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01417.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01417.x</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Friedlingstein et al.(2001)</label><?label Friedlingstein01?><mixed-citation>Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Philippe, C., Jean‐Louis, D., Laurent, F.,
Hervé, L., Patrick, M., and James, O.: Positive feedback between future
climate change and the carbon cycle, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28,
1543–1546, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000GL012015</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Fritts et al.(2000)</label><?label TreeRing2000?><mixed-citation>Fritts, H. C., Shashkin, A. V., Hemming, D. L., Leavitt, S. W., Wright, W. E.,
and Downs, G. M.: Preliminary Draft User Manual for Treering 2000, available at:
<uri>https://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal/treering/manual2000.PDF</uri> (last access: 29 June 2020),
2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Galiano et al.(2011)</label><?label Galiano11?><mixed-citation>Galiano, L., Martínez-Vilalta, J., and Lloret, F.: Carbon reserves and canopy
defoliation determine the recovery of Scots pine 4 yr after a drought
episode, New Phytol., 190, 750–759,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03628.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03628.x</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Gatti et al.(2014)</label><?label Gatti14?><mixed-citation>Gatti, L. V., Gloor, M., Miller, J. B., Doughty, C. E., Mahli, Y., Domingues,
L. G., Basso, L. S., Martinewski, A., Correia, C. S. C., Borges, V. F.,
Freitas, S., Braz, R., Anderson, L. O., Rocha, H., Grace, J., Phillips,
O. L., and Lloyd, J.: Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance
revealed by atmospheric measurements, Nature, 506, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12957" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature12957</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Gifford(1995)</label><?label Gifford95?><mixed-citation>Gifford, R. M.: Whole plant respiration and photosynthesis of wheat under
increased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration and temperature: long-term vs. short-term
distinctions for modelling, Glob. Change Biol., 1, 385–396,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00037.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00037.x</ext-link>,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Girardin et al.(2016)</label><?label Girardin16?><mixed-citation>Girardin, C. A. J., Malhi, Y., Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B., Meir, P., del
Aguila-Pasquel, J., Araujo-Murakami, A., da Costa, A. C. L., Silva-Espejo,
J. E., Farfán Amézquita, F., and Rowland, L.: Seasonal trends of Amazonian
rainforest phenology, net primary productivity, and carbon allocation, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 30, 700–715, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005270" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GB005270</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Gloor et al.(2018)</label><?label Gloor18?><mixed-citation>Gloor, E., Wilson, C., Chipperfield, M. P., Chevallier, F., Buermann, W.,
Boesch, H., Parker, R., Somkuti, P., Gatti, L. V., Correia, C., Domingues,
L. G., Peters, W., Miller, J., Deeter, M. N., and Sullivan, M. J. P.:
Tropical land carbon cycle responses to 2015/16 El Niño as recorded by
atmospheric greenhouse gas and remote sensing data, Philos.
T. R. Soc. B, 373, 20170302,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0302" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rstb.2017.0302</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Harper et al.(2016)</label><?label Harper16?><mixed-citation>Harper, A. B., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Wiltshire, A. J., Jones, C. D., Sitch, S., Mercado, L. M., Groenendijk, M., Robertson, E., Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Atkin, O. K., Bahn, M., Cornelissen, J., Niinemets, Ü., Onipchenko, V., Peñuelas, J., Poorter, L., Reich, P. B., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., and Bodegom, P. V.: Improved representation of plant functional types and physiology in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES v4.2) using plant trait information, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2415–2440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Harris(2019)</label><?label CRUJRA?><mixed-citation>Harris, I. C.: CRU JRA v1.1: A forcings dataset of gridded land surface blend
of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Japanese reanalysis (JRA) data, Jan.1901–Dec.2017., CEDA Archive, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5285/13f3635174794bb98cf8ac4b0ee8f4ed" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5285/13f3635174794bb98cf8ac4b0ee8f4ed</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Hartmann and Trumbore(2016)</label><?label Hartmann16?><mixed-citation>Hartmann, H. and Trumbore, S.: Understanding the roles of nonstructural
carbohydrates in forest trees – from what we can measure to what we want to
know, New Phytol., 211, 386–403, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13955" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.13955</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Hemming et al.(2001)</label><?label Hemming01?><mixed-citation>Hemming, D., Fritts, H., Leavitt, S., Wright, W., Long, A., and Shashkin, A.:
Modelling tree-ring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>C, Dendrochronologia, 19, 23–38, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Hsiao(1973)</label><?label Hsiao73?><mixed-citation>Hsiao, T. C.: Plant Responses to Water Stress, Annu. Rev. Plant
Physiol., 24, 519–570, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.24.060173.002511" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev.pp.24.060173.002511</ext-link>,  1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Huntingford et al.(2009)</label><?label Huntingford09?><mixed-citation>Huntingford, C., Lowe, J. A., Booth, B. B. B., Jones, C. D., Harris, G. R.,
Gohar, L. K., and Meir, P.: Contributions of carbon cycle uncertainty to
future climate projection spread, Tellus B, 61, 355–360,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00414.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00414.x</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Huntingford et al.(2013)</label><?label Huntingford13?><mixed-citation>Huntingford, C., Zelazowski, P., Galbraith, D., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S.,
Fisher, R., Lomas, M., Walker, A. P., Jones, C. D., Booth, B. B. B. ., Malhi,
Y., Hemming, D., Kay, G., Good, P., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Atkin,
O. K., Lloyd, J., Gloor, E., Zaragoza-Castells, J., Meir, P., Betts, R.,
Harris, P. P., Nobre, C., Marengo, J., and Cox, P. M.: Simulated resilience
of tropical rainforests to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-induced climate change, Nat. Geosci., 6,
268–273, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1741" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1741</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>IPCC(2014)</label><?label IPCCAR5?><mixed-citation>
IPCC: 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K., and Meyer, L. A., IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp., 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Jones(2019)</label><?label Jones2019?><mixed-citation>Jones, S.: simonjones28/SUGAR-Caxiuana: SUGAR – Caxiuana (Version 1.0.0), Zenodo, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3547613" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.3547613</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{K\"{o}rner(2003)}}?><label>Körner(2003)</label><?label Korner03?><mixed-citation>Körner, C.: Carbon limitation in trees, J. Ecol., 91, 4–17,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00742.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00742.x</ext-link>,  2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Landhäusser et al.(2018)</label><?label Landhausser18?><mixed-citation>Landhäusser, S. M., Chow, P. S., Dickman, L. T., Furze, M. E., Kuhlman, I.,
Schmid, S., Wiesenbauer, J., Wild, B., Gleixner, G., Hartmann, H., Hoch, G.,
McDowell, N. G., Richardson, A. D., Richter, A., and Adams, H. D.:
Standardized protocols and procedures can precisely a<?pagebreak page3611?>nd accurately quantify
non-structural carbohydrates, Tree Physiol., 38, 1764–1778,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy118" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/treephys/tpy118</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Liu et al.(2017)</label><?label Liu17?><mixed-citation>Liu, J., Bowman, K. W., Schimel, D. S., Parazoo, N. C., Jiang, Z., Lee, M.,
Bloom, A. A., Wunch, D., Frankenberg, C., Sun, Y., O'Dell,
C. W., Gurney, K. R., Menemenlis, D., Gierach, M., Crisp, D., and Eldering,
A.: Contrasting carbon cycle responses of the tropical continents to the
2015–2016 El Niño, Science, 358, eaam5690,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5690" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aam5690</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Luo et al.(2018)</label><?label Luo18?><mixed-citation>Luo, X., Keenan, T. F., Fisher, J. B., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.-C., Chen, J. M.,
Jiang, C., Ju, W., Perakalapudi, N.-V., Ryu, Y., and Tadić, J. M.: The
impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on global photosynthesis using satellite
remote sensing, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 373, 20170409, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0409" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rstb.2017.0409</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><label>Mahmud et al.(2018)</label><?label Mahmud18?><mixed-citation>Mahmud, K., Medlyn, B. E., Duursma, R. A., Campany, C., and De Kauwe, M. G.: Inferring the effects of sink strength on plant carbon balance processes from experimental measurements, Biogeosciences, 15, 4003–4018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4003-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-15-4003-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Marengo et al.(2018)</label><?label Marengo18?><mixed-citation>Marengo, J. A., Souza, C. M., Thonicke, K., Burton, C., Halladay, K., Betts,
R. A., Alves, L. M., and Soares, W. R.: Changes in Climate and Land Use Over
the Amazon Region: Current and Future Variability and Trends, Front.
Earth Sci., 6, 228, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00228" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2018.00228</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><label>Martínez-Vilalta et al.(2014)</label><?label MartinezVilalta14?><mixed-citation>Martínez-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D., Retana, J., and Mencuccini,
M.: A new look at water transport regulation in plants, New Phytol., 204,
105–115, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12912" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12912</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Martínez-Vilalta et al.(2016)</label><?label MartinezVilalta16?><mixed-citation>Martínez-Vilalta, J., Sala, A., Asensio, D., Galiano, L., Hoch, G., Palacio,
S., Piper, F. I., and Lloret, F.: Dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates in
terrestrial plants: a global synthesis, Ecol. Monogr., 86, 495–516,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1231" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/ecm.1231</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><label>McDowell et al.(2008)</label><?label McDowell08?><mixed-citation>
McDowell, N., Pockman, W. T., Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., Cobb, N., Kolb,
T., Plaut, J., Sperry, J., West, A., Williams, D. G., and Yepez, E. A.:
Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants
survive while others succumb to drought?, New Phytol., 178, 719–739,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><label>Meir et al.(2018)</label><?label Meir18?><mixed-citation>Meir, P., Mencuccini, M., Binks, O., da Costa, A. L., Ferreira, L., and
Rowland, L.: Short-term effects of drought on tropical forest do not fully
predict impacts of repeated or long-term drought: gas exchange versus growth,
Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 373,
20170311, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0311" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rstb.2017.0311</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx62"><label>Mencuccini et al.(2019)</label><?label Mencuccini19?><mixed-citation>Mencuccini, M., Manzoni, S., and Christoffersen, B.: Modelling water fluxes in
plants: from tissues to biosphere, New Phytol., 222, 1207–1222,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15681" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.15681</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx63"><label>Metcalfe et al.(2010)</label><?label Metcalfe10?><mixed-citation>Metcalfe, D. B., Meir, P., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Lobo-do Vale, R., Galbraith,
D., Fisher, R. A., Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P., da Costa, A. C. L.,
de Almeida, S. S., Braga, A. P., Gonçalves, P. H. L., de Athaydes, J.,
da Costa, M., Portela, T. T. B., de Oliveira, A. A. R., Malhi, Y., and
Williams, M.: Shifts in plant respiration and carbon use efficiency at a
large-scale drought experiment in the eastern Amazon, New Phytol., 187,
608–621, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03319.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03319.x</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx64"><label>Mitchell et al.(2013)</label><?label Mitchell13?><mixed-citation>Mitchell, P. J., O'Grady, A. P., Tissue, D. T., White, D. A., Ottenschlaeger,
M. L., and Pinkard, E. A.: Drought response strategies define the relative
contributions of hydraulic dysfunction and carbohydrate depletion during tree
mortality, New Phytol., 197, 862–872, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12064" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12064</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx65"><label>Muller et al.(2011)</label><?label Muller11?><mixed-citation>Muller, B., Pantin, F., Génard, M., Turc, O., Freixes, S., Piques, M., and
Gibon, Y.: Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C
content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs,
J. Exp. Bot., 62, 1715–1729, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq438" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/jxb/erq438</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx66"><label>O'Brien et al.(2014)</label><?label Obrien14?><mixed-citation>O'Brien, M. J., Leuzinger, S., Philipson, C. D., Tay, J., and Hector, A.:
Drought survival of tropical tree seedlings enhanced by non-structural
carbohydrate levels, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 710–714,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2281</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx67"><label>Palacio et al.(2014)</label><?label Palacio14?><mixed-citation>Palacio, S., Hoch, G., Sala, A., Körner, C., and Millard, P.: Does carbon
storage limit tree growth?, New Phytol., 201, 1096–1100,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12602" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12602</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx68"><label>Pan et al.(2011)</label><?label Pan?><mixed-citation>Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A.,
Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P.,
Jackson, R. B., Pacala, S. W., McGuire, A. D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A.,
Sitch, S., and Hayes, D.: A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the
World's Forests, Science, 333, 988–993,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1201609</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx69"><label>Parazoo et al.(2014)</label><?label Parazoo14?><mixed-citation>Parazoo, N. C., Bowman, K., Fisher, J. B., Frankenberg, C., Jones, D. B. A.,
Cescatti, A., Pérez-Priego, O., Wohlfahrt, G., and Montagnani, L.:
Terrestrial gross primary production inferred from satellite fluorescence and
vegetation models, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 3103–3121,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12652" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12652</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx70"><label>Phillips et al.(2009)</label><?label Phillips09?><mixed-citation>Phillips, O. L., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Lewis, S. L., Fisher, J. B., Lloyd,
J., López-González, G., Malhi, Y., Monteagudo, A., Peacock, J.,
Quesada, C. A., van der Heijden, G., Almeida, S., Amaral, I., Arroyo, L.,
Aymard, G., Baker, T. R., Bánki, O., Blanc, L., Bonal, D., Brando, P.,
Chave, J., de Oliveira, Á. C. A., Cardozo, N. D., Czimczik, C. I.,
Feldpausch, T. R., Freitas, M. A., Gloor, E., Higuchi, N., Jiménez, E.,
Lloyd, G., Meir, P., Mendoza, C., Morel, A., Neill, D. A., Nepstad, D.,
Patiño, S., Peñuela, M. C., Prieto, A., Ramírez, F., Schwarz,
M., Silva, J., Silveira, M., Thomas, A. S., Steege, H. t., Stropp, J.,
Vásquez, R., Zelazowski, P., Dávila, E. A., Andelman, S., Andrade,
A., Chao, K.-J., Erwin, T., Di Fiore, A., Eurídice Horario,  C., Keeling, H., Killeen,
T. J., Laurance, W. F., Cruz, A. P., Pitman, N. C. A., Vargas, P. N.,
Ramírez-Angulo, H., Rudas, A., Salamão, R., Silva, N., Terborgh, J.,
and Torres-Lezama, A.: Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest, Science,
323, 1344–1347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1164033</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx71"><label>Poulter et al.(2014)</label><?label Poulter14?><mixed-citation>Poulter, B., Frank, D., Ciais, P., Myneni, R. B., Andela, N., Bi, J., Broquet,
G., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Liu, Y. Y., Running, S. W., Sitch, S.,
and van der Werf, G. R.: Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual
variability of the global carbon cycle, Nature, 509, 600–603,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13376" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature13376</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx72"><label>Powell et al.(2013)</label><?label Powell13?><mixed-citation>Powell, T. L., Galbraith, D. R., Christoffersen, B. O., Harper, A., Imbuzeiro,
H. M. A., Rowland, L., Almeida, S., Brando, P. M., Costa, A. C. L., Costa,
M. H., Levine, N. M., Malhi, Y., Saleska, S. R., Sotta, E., Williams, M.,
Meir, P., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Confronting model predictions of carbon
fluxes with measurements of Amazon forests subjected to experimental drought,
New Phytol., 200, 350–365, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12390" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.12390</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx73"><label>Quentin et al.(2015)</label><?label Quentin15?><mixed-citation>Quentin, A. G., Pinkard, E. A., Ryan, M. G., Tissue, D. T., Baggett, L. S.,
Adams, H. D., Maillard, P., Marchand, J., Landhäusser, S. M., Lacointe,
A., Gibon, Y., Anderegg, W. R., Asao, S., Atkin, O. K., Bonhomme, M., Claye,
C., Chow, P. S., Clément-Vidal, A., Davies, N. W., Dickman, L. T., Dumbur,
R., Ellsworth, D. S., Falk, K., Galiano, L., Grünzweig, J. M., Hartmann, <?pagebreak page3612?>H.,
Hoch, G., Hood, S., Jones, J. E., Koike, T., Kuhlmann, I., Lloret, F.,
Maestro, M., Mansfield, S. D., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Maucourt, M., McDowell,
N. G., Moing, A., Muller, B., Nebauer, S. G., Niinemets, U., Palacio, S.,
Piper, F., Raveh, E., Richter, A., Rolland, G., Rosas, T., Saint Joanis, B.,
Sala, A., Smith, R. A., Sterck, F., Stinziano, J. R., Tobias, M., Unda, F.,
Watanabe, M., Way, D. A., Weerasinghe, L. K., Wild, B., Wiley, E., and
Woodruff, D. R.: Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among
laboratories, Tree Physiol., 35, 1146–1165, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv073" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/treephys/tpv073</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx74"><label>Rowland et al.(2015)</label><?label Rowland15?><mixed-citation>Rowland, L., da Costa, A. C. L., Galbraith, D. R., Oliveira, R. S., Binks,
O. J., Oliveira, A. A. R., Pullen, A. M., Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B.,
Vasconcelos, S. S., Ferreira, L. V., Malhi, Y., Grace, J., Mencuccini, M.,
and Meir, P.: Death from drought in tropical forests is triggered by
hydraulics not carbon starvation, Nature, 528, 119–122, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15539" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature15539</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx75"><label>Rowland et al.(2018)</label><?label Rowland18?><mixed-citation>Rowland, L., da Costa, A. C. L., Oliveira, A. A. R., Almeida, S. S., Ferreira,
L. V., Malhi, Y., Metcalfe, D. B., Mencuccini, M., Grace, J., and Meir, P.:
Shock and stabilisation following long-term drought in tropical forest from
15 years of litterfall dynamics, J. Ecol., 106, 1673–1682,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12931" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1365-2745.12931</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx76"><label>Roxburgh et al.(2005)</label><?label Roxburgh05?><mixed-citation>Roxburgh, S. H., Berry, S. L., Buckly, T. N., Barnes, B., and Roderick, M. L.:
What is NPP? Inconsistent accounting of respiratory fluxes in the definition
of net primary production, Funct. Ecol., 19, 378–382,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00983.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00983.x</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx77"><label>Ryan(1991)</label><?label Ryan91?><mixed-citation>Ryan, M. G.: Effects of Climate Change on Plant Respiration, Ecol.
Appl., 1, 157–167, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1941808" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2307/1941808</ext-link>,
1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx78"><label>Sala and Mencuccini(2014)</label><?label Sala14?><mixed-citation>Sala, A. and Mencuccini, M.: Plump trees win under drought, Nat. Clim.
Change, 4, 666–667, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2329" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2329</ext-link>,  2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx79"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Salom\'{o}n et~al.(2019)}}?><label>Salomón et al.(2019)</label><?label Salomon19?><mixed-citation>Salomón, R. L., De Roo, L., Oleksyn, J., De Pauw, D. J. W., and Steppe, K.:
TReSpire – a biophysical TRee Stem respiration model, New Phytol., n/a,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16174" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.16174</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx80"><label>Sevanto et al.(2014)</label><?label Sevanto14?><mixed-citation>Sevanto, S., McDowell, N. G., Dickman, L. T., Pangle, R., and Pockman, W. T.:
How do trees die? A test of the hydraulic failure and carbon starvation
hypotheses, Plant Cell Environ., 37, 153–161,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12141" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/pce.12141</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx81"><label>Sperry and Love(2015)</label><?label Sperry15?><mixed-citation>Sperry, J. S. and Love, D. M.: What plant hydraulics can tell us about
responses to climate-change droughts, New Phytol., 207, 14–27,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13354" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.13354</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx82"><label>Sperry et al.(2017)</label><?label Sperry17?><mixed-citation>Sperry, J. S., Venturas, M. D., Anderegg, W. R. L., Mencuccini, M., Mackay,
D. S., Wang, Y., and Love, D. M.: Predicting stomatal responses to the
environment from the optimization of photosynthetic gain and hydraulic cost,
Plant Cell Environ., 40, 816–830, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12852" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/pce.12852</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx83"><label>Stitt(1991)</label><?label Stitt91?><mixed-citation>Stitt, M.: Rising <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> levels and their potential significance for carbon flow
in photosynthetic cells, Plant Cell Environ., 14, 741–762,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01440.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01440.x</ext-link>,
1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx84"><label>Thornley and Cannell(2000)</label><?label Thornley2000?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. and Cannell, M.: Modelling the Components of Plant Respiration:
Representation and Realism, Ann. Bot., 85, 55–67,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1999.0997" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1006/anbo.1999.0997</ext-link>,
2000.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx85"><label>Thornley(1970)</label><?label Thornley70?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: Respiration, Growth and Maintenance in Plants, Nature, 227,
304–305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/227304b0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/227304b0</ext-link>, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx86"><label>Thornley(1971)</label><?label Thornley71?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: Energy, Respiration, and Growth in Plants, Ann.
Bot., 35, 721–728, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084519" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084519</ext-link>, 1971.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx87"><label>Thornley(1972a)</label><?label Thornley72a?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: A Model to Describe the Partitioning of Photosynthate
during Vegetative Plant Growth, Ann. Bot., 36, 419–430,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084601" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084601</ext-link>,
1972a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx88"><label>Thornley(1972b)</label><?label Thornley72b?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: A Balanced Quantitative Model for Root: Shoot Ratios in
Vegetative Plants, Ann. Bot., 36, 431–441,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084602" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084602</ext-link>,
1972b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx89"><label>Thornley(1977)</label><?label Thornley77?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: Growth, Maintenance and Respiration: a Re-interpretation,
Ann. Bot., 41, 1191–1203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a085409" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a085409</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx90"><label>Thornley(1991)</label><?label Thornley91?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: A Transport-resistance Model of Forest Growth and
Partitioning, Ann. Bot., 68, 211–226,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a088246" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a088246</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx91"><label>Thornley(1997)</label><?label Thornley97?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: Modelling allocation with transport/conversion processes,
Silva Fenn., 31, 341–355, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a8532" ext-link-type="DOI">10.14214/sf.a8532</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx92"><label>Thornley(2011)</label><?label Thornley11?><mixed-citation>Thornley, J. H. M.: Plant growth and respiration re-visited: maintenance
respiration defined – it is an emergent property of, not a separate process
within, the system – and why the respiration : photosynthesis ratio is
conservative, Ann. Bot., 108, 1365–1380, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr238" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/aob/mcr238</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx93"><label>Thornley and Johnson(1990)</label><?label Thornleybook?><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M. and Johnson, I. R.: Plant and Crop Modelling. A Mathematical
Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology, The Blackburn Press,  Caldwell, New Jersey, USA, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx94"><label>Trugman et al.(2018)</label><?label Trugman17?><mixed-citation>Trugman, A. T., Detto, M., Bartlett, M. K., Medvigy, D., Anderegg, W. R. L.,
Schwalm, C., Schaffer, B., and Pacala, S. W.: Tree carbon allocation explains
forest drought-kill and recovery patterns, Ecol. Lett., 21, 1552–1560,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13136" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ele.13136</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx95"><label>Tyree and Sperry(1989)</label><?label Tyree89?><mixed-citation>Tyree, M. T. and Sperry, J. S.: Vulnerability of Xylem to Cavitation and
Embolism, Annu. Rev. Plant Phys., 40,
19–36, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.40.060189.000315" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev.pp.40.060189.000315</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx96"><label>UN Food and Agriculture Organization Rome(2015)</label><?label FAO?><mixed-citation>UN Food and Agriculture Organization Rome: Global Forest Resources
Assessment, available at: <uri>http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf</uri> (last access: 29 June 2020), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx97"><label>Wiley and Helliker(2012)</label><?label Wiley12?><mixed-citation>Wiley, E. and Helliker, B.: A re-evaluation of carbon storage in trees lends
greater support for carbon limitation to growth, New Phytol., 195,
285–289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04180.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04180.x</ext-link>,  2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx98"><label>Williams et al.(2019)</label><?label Williams18?><mixed-citation>Williams, K. E., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Mercado, L. M., Mathison, C. T., Falloon, P. D., Cox, P. M., and Kim, J.: How can the First ISLSCP Field Experiment contribute to present-day efforts to evaluate water stress in JULESv5.0?, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx99"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{W{\"{u}}rth et~al.(2005)}}?><label>Würth et al.(2005)</label><?label Wurth?><mixed-citation>Würth, M. K. R., Peláez-Riedl, S., Wright, S. J., and Körner, C.:
Non-structural carbohydrate pools in a tropical forest, Oecologia, 143,
11–24, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1773-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00442-004-1773-2</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>The impact of a simple representation of non-structural carbohydrates on the simulated response of tropical forests to drought</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Accurately representing the response of ecosystems to environmental change in land surface models (LSMs) is crucial to making accurate predictions of future climate. Many LSMs do not correctly capture plant respiration and growth fluxes, particularly in response to extreme climatic events. This is in part due to the unrealistic assumption that total plant carbon expenditure (PCE) is always equal to gross carbon accumulation by photosynthesis. We present and evaluate a simple model of labile carbon storage and utilisation (SUGAR) designed to be integrated into an LSM, which allows simulated plant respiration and growth to vary independent of photosynthesis. SUGAR buffers simulated PCE against seasonal variation in photosynthesis, producing more constant (less variable) predictions of plant growth and respiration relative to an LSM that does not represent labile carbon storage. This allows the model to more accurately capture observed carbon fluxes at a large-scale drought experiment in a tropical moist forest in the Amazon, relative to the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator LSM (JULES). SUGAR is designed to improve the representation of carbon storage in LSMs and provides a simple framework that allows new processes to be integrated as the empirical understanding of carbon storage in plants improves. The study highlights the need for future research into carbon storage and allocation in plants, particularly in response to extreme climate events such as drought.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Adams et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Adams, H. D., Germino, M. J., Breshears, D. D., Barron-Gafford, G. A.,
Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Zou, C. B., and Huxman, T. E.: Nonstructural leaf
carbohydrate dynamics of Pinus edulis during drought-induced tree mortality
reveal role for carbon metabolism in mortality mechanism, New Phytol.,
197, 1142–1151, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12102</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Adams et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Adams, H. D., Zeppel, M. J. B., Anderegg, W. R. L., Hartmann, H.,
Landhäusser, S. M., Tissue, D. T., Huxman, T. E., Hudson, P. J., Franz,
T. E., Allen, C. D., Anderegg, L. D. L., Barron-Gafford, G. A., Beerling,
D. J., Breshears, D. D., Brodribb, T. J., Bugmann, H., Cobb, R. C., Collins,
A. D., Dickman, L. T., Duan, H., Ewers, B. E., Galiano, L., Galvez, D. A.,
Garcia-Forner, N., Gaylord, M. L., Germino, M. J., Gessler, A., Hacke, U. G.,
Hakamada, R., Hector, A., Jenkins, M. W., Kane, J. M., Kolb, T. E., Law,
D. J., Lewis, J. D., Limousin, J.-M., Love, D. M., Macalady, A. K.,
Martínez-Vilalta, J., Mencuccini, M., Mitchell, P. J., Muss, J. D.,
O'Brien, M. J., O'Grady, A. P., Pangle, R. E., Pinkard, E. A., Piper, F. I.,
Plaut, J. A., Pockman, W. T., Quirk, J., Reinhardt, K., Ripullone, F., Ryan,
M. G., Sala, A., Sevanto, S., Sperry, J. S., Vargas, R., Vennetier, M., Way,
D. A., Xu, C., Yepez, E. A., and McDowell, N. G.: A multi-species synthesis
of physiological mechanisms in drought-induced tree mortality, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 1285–1291, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0248-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0248-x</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Ahlström et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Ahlström, A., Raupach, M. R., Schurgers, G., Smith, B., Arneth, A., Jung,
M., Reichstein, M., Canadell, J. G., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A. K., Kato,
E., Poulter, B., Sitch, S., Stocker, B. D., Viovy, N., Wang, Y. P.,
Wiltshire, A., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, N.: The dominant role of semi-arid
ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO<sub>2</sub> sink, Science, 348,
895–899, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Anderegg and Anderegg(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Anderegg, W. R. and Anderegg, L. D.: Hydraulic and carbohydrate changes in
experimental drought-induced mortality of saplings in two conifer species,
Tree Physiol., 33, 252–260, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt016</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Araújo et al.(1999)</label><mixed-citation>
Araújo, T. M., Higuchi, N., and Andrade de Carvalho Júnior, J. a.:
Comparison of formulae for biomass content determination in a tropical rain
forest site in the state of Pará, Brazil, Forest Ecol. Manage.,
117, 43–52, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00470-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00470-8</a>,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Avitabile et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L.,
Asner, G. P., Armston, J., Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., Bayol, N., Berry, N. J.,
Boeckx, P., de Jong, B. H. J., DeVries, B., Girardin, C. A. J., Kearsley, E.,
Lindsell, J. A., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lucas, R., Malhi, Y., Morel, A.,
Mitchard, E. T. A., Nagy, L., Qie, L., Quinones, M. J., Ryan, C. M., Ferry,
S. J. W., Sunderland, T., Laurin, G. V., Gatti, R. C., Valentini, R.,
Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A., and Willcock, S.: An integrated pan-tropical
biomass map using multiple reference datasets, Glob. Change Biol., 22,
1406–1420, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Baker et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, I. T., Prihodko, L., Denning, A. S., Goulden, M., Miller, S., and
da Rocha, H. R.: Seasonal drought stress in the Amazon: Reconciling models
and observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113, G00B01,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000644" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000644</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Baker et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Malhi, Y., Almeida, S., Arroyo, L., Di Fiore,
A., Erwin, T., Killeen, T. J., Laurance, S. G., Laurance, W. F., Lewis,
S. L., Lloyd, J., Monteagudo, A., Neill, D. A., Patiño, S., Pitman, N.
C. A., M. Silva, J. N., and Vásquez Martínez, R.: Variation in wood density
determines spatial patterns inAmazonian forest biomass, Glob. Change
Biol., 10, 545–562, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00751.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00751.x</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Balducci et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Balducci, L., Deslauriers, A., Giovannelli, A., Rossi, S., and Rathgeber,
C. B.: Effects of temperature and water deficit on cambial activity and
woody ring features in Picea mariana saplings, Tree Physiol., 33,
1006–1017, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt073" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt073</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Bastos et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Bastos, A., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Chen, C., Mialon, A., Wigneron,
J.-P., Arora, V. K., Briggs, P. R., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Chevallier,
F., Cheng, L., Delire, C., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Joos, F., Kato, E.,
Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J. R., Myneni, R., Nabel, J. E. M. S.,
Pongratz, J., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Tian, H., van Eck,
C., Viovy, N., Vuichard, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A., Yang, J., Zaehle,
S., Zeng, N., and Zhu, D.: Impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on the
terrestrial carbon cycle constrained by bottom-up and top-down approaches,
Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 373,
20170304, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0304" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0304</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Best et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Boyer(1970)</label><mixed-citation>
Boyer, J. S.: Leaf Enlargement and Metabolic Rates in Corn, Soybean, and
Sunflower at Various Leaf Water Potentials, Plant Physiol., 46, 233–235,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.46.2.233" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.46.2.233</a>, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Brown(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, S.: Estimating Biomass and Biomass Change of Tropical Forests: A Primer,
FAO Forestry Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 134 pp., 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Carvalhais et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens, B.,
Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson, J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global
covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems,
Nature, 514, 213–217, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Carvalho et al.(1998)</label><mixed-citation>
Carvalho Jr., J. A., Higuchi, N., Araújo, T. M., and Santos, J. C.: Combustion
completeness in a rainforest clearing experiment in Manaus, Brazil, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 103, 13195–13199,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00172" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00172</a>,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Chambers et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Chambers, J. Q., dos Santos, J., Ribeiro, R. J., and Higuchi, N.: Tree damage,
allometric relationships, and above-ground net primary production in central
Amazon forest, Forest Ecol. Manage., 152, 73–84,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00591-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00591-0</a>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Chambers et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Chambers, J. Q., Tribuzy, E. S., Toledo, L. C., Crispim, B. F., Higuchi, N.,
Santos, J. d., Araújo, A. C., Kruijt, B., Nobre, A. D., and Trumbore, S. E.:
Respiration from a tropical forest ecosystem: partitioning of sources and low
carbon use efficiency, Ecol. Appl., 14, 72–88,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/01-6012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1890/01-6012</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Chave et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, J. Q., Eamus, D.,
Fölster, H., Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J. P., Nelson,
B. W., Ogawa, H., Puig, H., Riéra, B., and Yamakura, T.: Tree allometry and
improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests,
Oecologia, 145, 87–99, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Chave et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Chave, J., Réjou-Méchain, M., Búrquez, A., Chidumayo, E., Colgan, M. S.,
Delitti, W. B., Duque, A., Eid, T., Fearnside, P. M., Goodman, R. C., Henry,
M., Martínez-Yrízar, A., Mugasha, W. A., Muller-Landau, H. C., Mencuccini,
M., Nelson, B. W., Ngomanda, A., Nogueira, E. M., Ortiz-Malavassi, E.,
Pélissier, R., Ploton, P., Ryan, C. M., Saldarriaga, J. G., and Vieilledent,
G.: Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of
tropical trees, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 3177–3190,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Clark et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–722, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Corlett(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Corlett, R. T.: The Impacts of Droughts in Tropical Forests, Trends Plant
Sci., 21, 584–593, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.02.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.02.003</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Cox et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Cox, P., Betts, R. A., Jones, C., Spall, S. A., and Totterdell, I. J.:
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled
model, Nature, 408, 184–187, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35041539" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/35041539</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Cox et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Cox, P. M., Pearson, D., Booth, B. B., Friedlingstein, P., Huntingford, C.,
Jones, C. D., and Luke, C. M.: Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate
change constrained by carbon dioxide variability, Nature, 494, 341–344,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11882" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11882</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>da Costa et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
da Costa, A. C. L., Galbraith, D., Almeida, S., Portela, B. T. T., da Costa,
M., de Athaydes Silva Junior, J., Braga, A. P., de Gonçalves, P. H. L.,
de Oliveira, A. A., Fisher, R., Phillips, O. L., Metcalfe, D. B., Levy, P.,
and Meir, P.: Effect of 7 yr of experimental drought on vegetation dynamics
and biomass storage of an eastern Amazonian rainforest, New Phytol., 187,
579–591, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03309.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03309.x</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>da Costa et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
da Costa, A. C. L., Metcalfe, D. B., Doughty, C. E., de Oliveira, A. A., Neto,
G. F., da Costa, M. C., Silva Junior, J. d. A., Aragão, L. E., Almeida, S.,
Galbraith, D. R., Rowland, L. M., Meir, P., and Malhi, Y.: Ecosystem
respiration and net primary productivity after 8–10 years of experimental
through-fall reduction in an eastern Amazon forest, Plant Ecol.
Divers., 7, 7–24, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2013.798366" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2013.798366</a>,  2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>De Kauwe et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
De Kauwe, M. G., Medlyn Belinda, E., Zaehle, S., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C.,
Wang, Y., Luo, Y., Jain, A. K., El‐Masri, B., Hickler, T., Wårlind, D.,
Weng, E., Parton, W. J., Thornton, P. E., Wang, S., Prentice, I. C., Asao,
S., Smith, B., McCarthy, H. R., Iversen, C. M., Hanson, P. J., Warren, J. M.,
Oren, R., and Norby, R. J.: Where does the carbon go? A model–data
intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two
temperate forest free‐air CO<sub>2</sub> enrichment sites, New Phytol., 203,
883–899, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12847" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12847</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Dewar et al.(1999)</label><mixed-citation>
Dewar, R. C., Medlyn, B. E., and Mcmurtrie, R. E.: Acclimation of the
respiration/photosynthesis ratio to temperature: insights from a model,
Glob. Change Biol., 5, 615–622, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00253.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00253.x</a>,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Dietze et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Dietze, M. C., Sala, A., Carbone, M. S., Czimczik, C. I., Mantooth, J. A.,
Richardson, A. D., and Vargas, R.: Nonstructural Carbon in Woody Plants,
Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 65, 667–687,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040054" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040054</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Doughty et al.(2015a)</label><mixed-citation>
Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B., Girardin, C. A. J., Amezquita, F. F., Durand,
L., Huaraca Huasco, W., Silva-Espejo, J. E., Araujo-Murakami, A., da Costa,
M. C., da Costa, A. C. L., Rocha, W., Meir, P., Galbraith, D., and Malhi, Y.:
Source and sink carbon dynamics and carbon allocation in the Amazon basin,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 29, 645–655, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB005028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB005028</a>,
2015a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Doughty et al.(2015b)</label><mixed-citation>
Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B., Girardin, C. A. J., Amézquita, F. F.,
Cabrera, D. G., Huasco, W. H., Silva-Espejo, J. E., Araujo-Murakami, A.,
da Costa, M. C., Rocha, W., Feldpausch, T. R., Mendoza, A. L. M., da Costa,
A. C. L., Meir, P., Phillips, O. L., and Malhi, Y.: Drought impact on forest
carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia, Nature, 519, 78–82,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14213" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14213</a>, 2015b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Eller et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Eller, C. B., Rowland, L., Oliveira, R. S., Bittencourt, P. R. L., Barros,
F. V., da Costa, A. C. L., Meir, P., Friend, A. D., Mencuccini, M., Sitch,
S., and Cox, P.: Modelling tropical forest responses to drought and El Niño
with a stomatal optimization model based on xylem hydraulics, Philos.
T. R. Soc. B, 373, 20170315,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0315" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0315</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Fatichi et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Fatichi, S., Leuzinger, S., and Körner, C.: Moving beyond photosynthesis: from
carbon source to sink-driven vegetation modeling, New Phytol., 201,
1086–1095, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12614" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12614</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Fatichi et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Fatichi, S., Pappas, C., and Ivanov, V. Y.: Modeling plant–water
interactions: an ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale,
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3, 327–368, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1125" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1125</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Fatichi et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Fatichi, S., Pappas, C., Zscheischler, J., and Leuzinger, S.: Modelling carbon
sources and sinks in terrestrial vegetation, New Phytol., 221, 652–668,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15451" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15451</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Fisher et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Fisher, R. A., Williams, M., Da Costa, A. L., Malhi, Y., Da Costa, R. F.,
Almeida, S., and Meir, P.: The response of an Eastern Amazonian rain forest
to drought stress: results and modelling analyses from a throughfall
exclusion experiment, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 2361–2378,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01417.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01417.x</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Friedlingstein et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Philippe, C., Jean‐Louis, D., Laurent, F.,
Hervé, L., Patrick, M., and James, O.: Positive feedback between future
climate change and the carbon cycle, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28,
1543–1546, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012015</a>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Fritts et al.(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Fritts, H. C., Shashkin, A. V., Hemming, D. L., Leavitt, S. W., Wright, W. E.,
and Downs, G. M.: Preliminary Draft User Manual for Treering 2000, available at:
<a href="https://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal/treering/manual2000.PDF" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 June 2020),
2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Galiano et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Galiano, L., Martínez-Vilalta, J., and Lloret, F.: Carbon reserves and canopy
defoliation determine the recovery of Scots pine 4&thinsp;yr after a drought
episode, New Phytol., 190, 750–759,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03628.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03628.x</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Gatti et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Gatti, L. V., Gloor, M., Miller, J. B., Doughty, C. E., Mahli, Y., Domingues,
L. G., Basso, L. S., Martinewski, A., Correia, C. S. C., Borges, V. F.,
Freitas, S., Braz, R., Anderson, L. O., Rocha, H., Grace, J., Phillips,
O. L., and Lloyd, J.: Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance
revealed by atmospheric measurements, Nature, 506, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12957" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12957</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Gifford(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Gifford, R. M.: Whole plant respiration and photosynthesis of wheat under
increased CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and temperature: long-term vs. short-term
distinctions for modelling, Glob. Change Biol., 1, 385–396,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00037.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00037.x</a>,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Girardin et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Girardin, C. A. J., Malhi, Y., Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B., Meir, P., del
Aguila-Pasquel, J., Araujo-Murakami, A., da Costa, A. C. L., Silva-Espejo,
J. E., Farfán Amézquita, F., and Rowland, L.: Seasonal trends of Amazonian
rainforest phenology, net primary productivity, and carbon allocation, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 30, 700–715, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005270" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005270</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Gloor et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Gloor, E., Wilson, C., Chipperfield, M. P., Chevallier, F., Buermann, W.,
Boesch, H., Parker, R., Somkuti, P., Gatti, L. V., Correia, C., Domingues,
L. G., Peters, W., Miller, J., Deeter, M. N., and Sullivan, M. J. P.:
Tropical land carbon cycle responses to 2015/16 El Niño as recorded by
atmospheric greenhouse gas and remote sensing data, Philos.
T. R. Soc. B, 373, 20170302,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0302" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0302</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Harper et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Harper, A. B., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Wiltshire, A. J., Jones, C. D., Sitch, S., Mercado, L. M., Groenendijk, M., Robertson, E., Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Atkin, O. K., Bahn, M., Cornelissen, J., Niinemets, Ü., Onipchenko, V., Peñuelas, J., Poorter, L., Reich, P. B., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., and Bodegom, P. V.: Improved representation of plant functional types and physiology in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES v4.2) using plant trait information, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2415–2440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Harris(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Harris, I. C.: CRU JRA v1.1: A forcings dataset of gridded land surface blend
of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Japanese reanalysis (JRA) data, Jan.1901–Dec.2017., CEDA Archive, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5285/13f3635174794bb98cf8ac4b0ee8f4ed" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5285/13f3635174794bb98cf8ac4b0ee8f4ed</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Hartmann and Trumbore(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Hartmann, H. and Trumbore, S.: Understanding the roles of nonstructural
carbohydrates in forest trees – from what we can measure to what we want to
know, New Phytol., 211, 386–403, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13955" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13955</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Hemming et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Hemming, D., Fritts, H., Leavitt, S., Wright, W., Long, A., and Shashkin, A.:
Modelling tree-ring <i>δ</i><sup>13</sup>C, Dendrochronologia, 19, 23–38, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Hsiao(1973)</label><mixed-citation>
Hsiao, T. C.: Plant Responses to Water Stress, Annu. Rev. Plant
Physiol., 24, 519–570, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.24.060173.002511" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.24.060173.002511</a>,  1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Huntingford et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Huntingford, C., Lowe, J. A., Booth, B. B. B., Jones, C. D., Harris, G. R.,
Gohar, L. K., and Meir, P.: Contributions of carbon cycle uncertainty to
future climate projection spread, Tellus B, 61, 355–360,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00414.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00414.x</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Huntingford et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Huntingford, C., Zelazowski, P., Galbraith, D., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S.,
Fisher, R., Lomas, M., Walker, A. P., Jones, C. D., Booth, B. B. B. ., Malhi,
Y., Hemming, D., Kay, G., Good, P., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Atkin,
O. K., Lloyd, J., Gloor, E., Zaragoza-Castells, J., Meir, P., Betts, R.,
Harris, P. P., Nobre, C., Marengo, J., and Cox, P. M.: Simulated resilience
of tropical rainforests to CO<sub>2</sub>-induced climate change, Nat. Geosci., 6,
268–273, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1741" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1741</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>IPCC(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K., and Meyer, L. A., IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp., 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Jones(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, S.: simonjones28/SUGAR-Caxiuana: SUGAR – Caxiuana (Version 1.0.0), Zenodo, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3547613" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3547613</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Körner(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Körner, C.: Carbon limitation in trees, J. Ecol., 91, 4–17,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00742.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00742.x</a>,  2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Landhäusser et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Landhäusser, S. M., Chow, P. S., Dickman, L. T., Furze, M. E., Kuhlman, I.,
Schmid, S., Wiesenbauer, J., Wild, B., Gleixner, G., Hartmann, H., Hoch, G.,
McDowell, N. G., Richardson, A. D., Richter, A., and Adams, H. D.:
Standardized protocols and procedures can precisely and accurately quantify
non-structural carbohydrates, Tree Physiol., 38, 1764–1778,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy118" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy118</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Liu et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, J., Bowman, K. W., Schimel, D. S., Parazoo, N. C., Jiang, Z., Lee, M.,
Bloom, A. A., Wunch, D., Frankenberg, C., Sun, Y., O'Dell,
C. W., Gurney, K. R., Menemenlis, D., Gierach, M., Crisp, D., and Eldering,
A.: Contrasting carbon cycle responses of the tropical continents to the
2015–2016 El Niño, Science, 358, eaam5690,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5690" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5690</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Luo et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, X., Keenan, T. F., Fisher, J. B., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.-C., Chen, J. M.,
Jiang, C., Ju, W., Perakalapudi, N.-V., Ryu, Y., and Tadić, J. M.: The
impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on global photosynthesis using satellite
remote sensing, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 373, 20170409, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0409" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0409</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>Mahmud et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Mahmud, K., Medlyn, B. E., Duursma, R. A., Campany, C., and De Kauwe, M. G.: Inferring the effects of sink strength on plant carbon balance processes from experimental measurements, Biogeosciences, 15, 4003–4018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4003-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4003-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>Marengo et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Marengo, J. A., Souza, C. M., Thonicke, K., Burton, C., Halladay, K., Betts,
R. A., Alves, L. M., and Soares, W. R.: Changes in Climate and Land Use Over
the Amazon Region: Current and Future Variability and Trends, Front.
Earth Sci., 6, 228, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00228" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00228</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>Martínez-Vilalta et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Martínez-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D., Retana, J., and Mencuccini,
M.: A new look at water transport regulation in plants, New Phytol., 204,
105–115, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12912" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12912</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>Martínez-Vilalta et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Martínez-Vilalta, J., Sala, A., Asensio, D., Galiano, L., Hoch, G., Palacio,
S., Piper, F. I., and Lloret, F.: Dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates in
terrestrial plants: a global synthesis, Ecol. Monogr., 86, 495–516,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1231" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1231</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>McDowell et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
McDowell, N., Pockman, W. T., Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., Cobb, N., Kolb,
T., Plaut, J., Sperry, J., West, A., Williams, D. G., and Yepez, E. A.:
Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants
survive while others succumb to drought?, New Phytol., 178, 719–739,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>Meir et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Meir, P., Mencuccini, M., Binks, O., da Costa, A. L., Ferreira, L., and
Rowland, L.: Short-term effects of drought on tropical forest do not fully
predict impacts of repeated or long-term drought: gas exchange versus growth,
Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 373,
20170311, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0311" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0311</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>Mencuccini et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Mencuccini, M., Manzoni, S., and Christoffersen, B.: Modelling water fluxes in
plants: from tissues to biosphere, New Phytol., 222, 1207–1222,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15681" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15681</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>Metcalfe et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Metcalfe, D. B., Meir, P., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Lobo-do Vale, R., Galbraith,
D., Fisher, R. A., Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P., da Costa, A. C. L.,
de Almeida, S. S., Braga, A. P., Gonçalves, P. H. L., de Athaydes, J.,
da Costa, M., Portela, T. T. B., de Oliveira, A. A. R., Malhi, Y., and
Williams, M.: Shifts in plant respiration and carbon use efficiency at a
large-scale drought experiment in the eastern Amazon, New Phytol., 187,
608–621, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03319.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03319.x</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>Mitchell et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Mitchell, P. J., O'Grady, A. P., Tissue, D. T., White, D. A., Ottenschlaeger,
M. L., and Pinkard, E. A.: Drought response strategies define the relative
contributions of hydraulic dysfunction and carbohydrate depletion during tree
mortality, New Phytol., 197, 862–872, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12064" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12064</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>Muller et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Muller, B., Pantin, F., Génard, M., Turc, O., Freixes, S., Piques, M., and
Gibon, Y.: Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C
content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs,
J. Exp. Bot., 62, 1715–1729, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq438" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq438</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>O'Brien et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
O'Brien, M. J., Leuzinger, S., Philipson, C. D., Tay, J., and Hector, A.:
Drought survival of tropical tree seedlings enhanced by non-structural
carbohydrate levels, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 710–714,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2281</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>Palacio et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Palacio, S., Hoch, G., Sala, A., Körner, C., and Millard, P.: Does carbon
storage limit tree growth?, New Phytol., 201, 1096–1100,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12602" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12602</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>Pan et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A.,
Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P.,
Jackson, R. B., Pacala, S. W., McGuire, A. D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A.,
Sitch, S., and Hayes, D.: A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the
World's Forests, Science, 333, 988–993,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>Parazoo et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Parazoo, N. C., Bowman, K., Fisher, J. B., Frankenberg, C., Jones, D. B. A.,
Cescatti, A., Pérez-Priego, O., Wohlfahrt, G., and Montagnani, L.:
Terrestrial gross primary production inferred from satellite fluorescence and
vegetation models, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 3103–3121,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12652" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12652</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>Phillips et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Phillips, O. L., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Lewis, S. L., Fisher, J. B., Lloyd,
J., López-González, G., Malhi, Y., Monteagudo, A., Peacock, J.,
Quesada, C. A., van der Heijden, G., Almeida, S., Amaral, I., Arroyo, L.,
Aymard, G., Baker, T. R., Bánki, O., Blanc, L., Bonal, D., Brando, P.,
Chave, J., de Oliveira, Á. C. A., Cardozo, N. D., Czimczik, C. I.,
Feldpausch, T. R., Freitas, M. A., Gloor, E., Higuchi, N., Jiménez, E.,
Lloyd, G., Meir, P., Mendoza, C., Morel, A., Neill, D. A., Nepstad, D.,
Patiño, S., Peñuela, M. C., Prieto, A., Ramírez, F., Schwarz,
M., Silva, J., Silveira, M., Thomas, A. S., Steege, H. t., Stropp, J.,
Vásquez, R., Zelazowski, P., Dávila, E. A., Andelman, S., Andrade,
A., Chao, K.-J., Erwin, T., Di Fiore, A., Eurídice Horario,  C., Keeling, H., Killeen,
T. J., Laurance, W. F., Cruz, A. P., Pitman, N. C. A., Vargas, P. N.,
Ramírez-Angulo, H., Rudas, A., Salamão, R., Silva, N., Terborgh, J.,
and Torres-Lezama, A.: Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest, Science,
323, 1344–1347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164033</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>Poulter et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Poulter, B., Frank, D., Ciais, P., Myneni, R. B., Andela, N., Bi, J., Broquet,
G., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Liu, Y. Y., Running, S. W., Sitch, S.,
and van der Werf, G. R.: Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual
variability of the global carbon cycle, Nature, 509, 600–603,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13376" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13376</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>Powell et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Powell, T. L., Galbraith, D. R., Christoffersen, B. O., Harper, A., Imbuzeiro,
H. M. A., Rowland, L., Almeida, S., Brando, P. M., Costa, A. C. L., Costa,
M. H., Levine, N. M., Malhi, Y., Saleska, S. R., Sotta, E., Williams, M.,
Meir, P., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Confronting model predictions of carbon
fluxes with measurements of Amazon forests subjected to experimental drought,
New Phytol., 200, 350–365, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12390" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12390</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>Quentin et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Quentin, A. G., Pinkard, E. A., Ryan, M. G., Tissue, D. T., Baggett, L. S.,
Adams, H. D., Maillard, P., Marchand, J., Landhäusser, S. M., Lacointe,
A., Gibon, Y., Anderegg, W. R., Asao, S., Atkin, O. K., Bonhomme, M., Claye,
C., Chow, P. S., Clément-Vidal, A., Davies, N. W., Dickman, L. T., Dumbur,
R., Ellsworth, D. S., Falk, K., Galiano, L., Grünzweig, J. M., Hartmann, H.,
Hoch, G., Hood, S., Jones, J. E., Koike, T., Kuhlmann, I., Lloret, F.,
Maestro, M., Mansfield, S. D., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Maucourt, M., McDowell,
N. G., Moing, A., Muller, B., Nebauer, S. G., Niinemets, U., Palacio, S.,
Piper, F., Raveh, E., Richter, A., Rolland, G., Rosas, T., Saint Joanis, B.,
Sala, A., Smith, R. A., Sterck, F., Stinziano, J. R., Tobias, M., Unda, F.,
Watanabe, M., Way, D. A., Weerasinghe, L. K., Wild, B., Wiley, E., and
Woodruff, D. R.: Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among
laboratories, Tree Physiol., 35, 1146–1165, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv073" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv073</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>Rowland et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Rowland, L., da Costa, A. C. L., Galbraith, D. R., Oliveira, R. S., Binks,
O. J., Oliveira, A. A. R., Pullen, A. M., Doughty, C. E., Metcalfe, D. B.,
Vasconcelos, S. S., Ferreira, L. V., Malhi, Y., Grace, J., Mencuccini, M.,
and Meir, P.: Death from drought in tropical forests is triggered by
hydraulics not carbon starvation, Nature, 528, 119–122, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15539" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15539</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>Rowland et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Rowland, L., da Costa, A. C. L., Oliveira, A. A. R., Almeida, S. S., Ferreira,
L. V., Malhi, Y., Metcalfe, D. B., Mencuccini, M., Grace, J., and Meir, P.:
Shock and stabilisation following long-term drought in tropical forest from
15 years of litterfall dynamics, J. Ecol., 106, 1673–1682,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12931" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12931</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>Roxburgh et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Roxburgh, S. H., Berry, S. L., Buckly, T. N., Barnes, B., and Roderick, M. L.:
What is NPP? Inconsistent accounting of respiratory fluxes in the definition
of net primary production, Funct. Ecol., 19, 378–382,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00983.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00983.x</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>Ryan(1991)</label><mixed-citation>
Ryan, M. G.: Effects of Climate Change on Plant Respiration, Ecol.
Appl., 1, 157–167, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1941808" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2307/1941808</a>,
1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>Sala and Mencuccini(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Sala, A. and Mencuccini, M.: Plump trees win under drought, Nat. Clim.
Change, 4, 666–667, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2329" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2329</a>,  2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>Salomón et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Salomón, R. L., De Roo, L., Oleksyn, J., De Pauw, D. J. W., and Steppe, K.:
TReSpire – a biophysical TRee Stem respiration model, New Phytol., n/a,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16174" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16174</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>Sevanto et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Sevanto, S., McDowell, N. G., Dickman, L. T., Pangle, R., and Pockman, W. T.:
How do trees die? A test of the hydraulic failure and carbon starvation
hypotheses, Plant Cell Environ., 37, 153–161,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12141" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12141</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>Sperry and Love(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Sperry, J. S. and Love, D. M.: What plant hydraulics can tell us about
responses to climate-change droughts, New Phytol., 207, 14–27,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13354" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13354</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>Sperry et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Sperry, J. S., Venturas, M. D., Anderegg, W. R. L., Mencuccini, M., Mackay,
D. S., Wang, Y., and Love, D. M.: Predicting stomatal responses to the
environment from the optimization of photosynthetic gain and hydraulic cost,
Plant Cell Environ., 40, 816–830, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12852" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12852</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>Stitt(1991)</label><mixed-citation>
Stitt, M.: Rising CO<sub>2</sub> levels and their potential significance for carbon flow
in photosynthetic cells, Plant Cell Environ., 14, 741–762,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01440.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01440.x</a>,
1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>Thornley and Cannell(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. and Cannell, M.: Modelling the Components of Plant Respiration:
Representation and Realism, Ann. Bot., 85, 55–67,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1999.0997" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1999.0997</a>,
2000.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>Thornley(1970)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: Respiration, Growth and Maintenance in Plants, Nature, 227,
304–305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/227304b0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/227304b0</a>, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>Thornley(1971)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: Energy, Respiration, and Growth in Plants, Ann.
Bot., 35, 721–728, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084519" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084519</a>, 1971.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>Thornley(1972a)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: A Model to Describe the Partitioning of Photosynthate
during Vegetative Plant Growth, Ann. Bot., 36, 419–430,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084601" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084601</a>,
1972a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>Thornley(1972b)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: A Balanced Quantitative Model for Root: Shoot Ratios in
Vegetative Plants, Ann. Bot., 36, 431–441,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084602" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084602</a>,
1972b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>Thornley(1977)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: Growth, Maintenance and Respiration: a Re-interpretation,
Ann. Bot., 41, 1191–1203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a085409" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a085409</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>Thornley(1991)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: A Transport-resistance Model of Forest Growth and
Partitioning, Ann. Bot., 68, 211–226,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a088246" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a088246</a>, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>Thornley(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: Modelling allocation with transport/conversion processes,
Silva Fenn., 31, 341–355, <a href="https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a8532" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a8532</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>Thornley(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M.: Plant growth and respiration re-visited: maintenance
respiration defined – it is an emergent property of, not a separate process
within, the system – and why the respiration&thinsp;:&thinsp;photosynthesis ratio is
conservative, Ann. Bot., 108, 1365–1380, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr238" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr238</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>Thornley and Johnson(1990)</label><mixed-citation>
Thornley, J. H. M. and Johnson, I. R.: Plant and Crop Modelling. A Mathematical
Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology, The Blackburn Press,  Caldwell, New Jersey, USA, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>Trugman et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Trugman, A. T., Detto, M., Bartlett, M. K., Medvigy, D., Anderegg, W. R. L.,
Schwalm, C., Schaffer, B., and Pacala, S. W.: Tree carbon allocation explains
forest drought-kill and recovery patterns, Ecol. Lett., 21, 1552–1560,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13136" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13136</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>Tyree and Sperry(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Tyree, M. T. and Sperry, J. S.: Vulnerability of Xylem to Cavitation and
Embolism, Annu. Rev. Plant Phys., 40,
19–36, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.40.060189.000315" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.40.060189.000315</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>UN Food and Agriculture Organization Rome(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
UN Food and Agriculture Organization Rome: Global Forest Resources
Assessment, available at: <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 June 2020), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>Wiley and Helliker(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Wiley, E. and Helliker, B.: A re-evaluation of carbon storage in trees lends
greater support for carbon limitation to growth, New Phytol., 195,
285–289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04180.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04180.x</a>,  2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>Williams et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, K. E., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Mercado, L. M., Mathison, C. T., Falloon, P. D., Cox, P. M., and Kim, J.: How can the First ISLSCP Field Experiment contribute to present-day efforts to evaluate water stress in JULESv5.0?, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>Würth et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Würth, M. K. R., Peláez-Riedl, S., Wright, S. J., and Körner, C.:
Non-structural carbohydrate pools in a tropical forest, Oecologia, 143,
11–24, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1773-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1773-2</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
