Articles | Volume 18, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2181-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2181-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
25 Mar 2021
Research article |
| 25 Mar 2021
| 25 Mar 2021
Examining the sensitivity of the terrestrial carbon cycle to the expression of El Niño
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Martin G. De Kauwe
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Andrew J. Pitman
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Benjamin Smith
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Related authors
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Andrew J. Pitman, Anna M. Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Bastien François, and Benjamin Smith
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 549–576, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Studies analyzing the impact of the future climate on ecosystems employ climate projections simulated by global circulation models. These climate projections display biases that translate into significant uncertainty in projections of the future carbon cycle. Here, we test different methods to constrain the uncertainty in simulations of the carbon cycle over Australia. We find that all methods reduce the bias in the steady-state carbon variables but that temporal properties do not improve.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andrew J. Pitman, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Anthony P. Walker, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 5639–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, yet the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations by an ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models over Australia and highlighted a number of key areas that lead to model divergence on both short (inter-annual) and long (decadal) timescales.
Jon Cranko Page, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andy J. Pitman, Isaac R. Towers, Gabriele Arduini, Martin J. Best, Craig Ferguson, Jürgen Knauer, Hyungjun Kim, David M. Lawrence, Tomoko Nitta, Keith W. Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Anna Ukkola, Nicholas Vuichard, and Gab Abramowitz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4149, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4149, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper used a large dataset of observations, machine learning predictions, and computer model simulations to test how well land surface models represent the water, energy, and carbon cycles. We found that the models work well under "normal" weather but do not meet performance expectations during coinciding extreme conditions. Since these extremes are relatively rare, targeted model improvements could deliver major performance gains.
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, Philippe Ciais, and Daniel S. Goll
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate estimates of global soil organic carbon (SOC) content and its spatial pattern are critical for future climate change mitigation. However, the most advanced mechanistic SOC models struggle to do this task. Here we apply multiple explainable machine learning methods to identify missing variables and misrepresented relationships between environmental factors and SOC in these models, offering new insights to guide model development for more reliable SOC predictions.
Jianyong Ma, Almut Arneth, Benjamin Smith, Peter Anthoni, Xu-Ri, Peter Eliasson, David Wårlind, Martin Wittenbrink, and Stefan Olin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3131–3155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3131-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3131-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a powerful greenhouse gas mainly released from natural and agricultural soils. This study examines how global soil N2O emissions changed from 1961 to 2020 and identifies key factors driving these changes using an ecological model. The findings highlight croplands as the largest source, with factors like fertilizer use and climate change enhancing emissions. Rising CO2 levels, however, can partially mitigate N2O emissions through increased plant nitrogen uptake.
Matthew O. Grant, Anna M. Ukkola, Elisabeth Vogel, Sanaa Hobeichi, Andy J. Pitman, Alex Raymond Borowiak, and Keirnan Fowler
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4024, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4024, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Australia is regularly subjected to severe and widespread drought. By using multiple drought indicators, we show that while there have been widespread decreases in droughts since the beginning of the 20th century. However, many regions have seen an increase in droughts in more recent decades. Despite these changes, our analysis shows that they remain within the range of observed variability and are not unprecedented in the context of past droughts.
Prashant Paudel, Stefan Olin, Mark Tjoelker, Mikael Pontarp, Daniel Metcalfe, and Benjamin Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3977, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3977, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ecological processes respond to changes in rainfall conditions. Competition and stress created by water availability are two primary components at two ends of the rainfall gradient. In wetter areas, plants compete for resources, while in drier regions, stress limits growth. The complex interaction between plant characters and their response to growth conditions governs ecosystem processes. These findings can be used to understand how future rainfall changes could impact ecosystems.
Gab Abramowitz, Anna Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Mathew Lipson, Martin G. De Kauwe, Samuel Green, Claire Brenner, Jonathan Frame, Grey Nearing, Martyn Clark, Martin Best, Peter Anthoni, Gabriele Arduini, Souhail Boussetta, Silvia Caldararu, Kyeungwoo Cho, Matthias Cuntz, David Fairbairn, Craig R. Ferguson, Hyungjun Kim, Yeonjoo Kim, Jürgen Knauer, David Lawrence, Xiangzhong Luo, Sergey Malyshev, Tomoko Nitta, Jerome Ogee, Keith Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Phillipe Peylin, Patricia de Rosnay, Heather Rumbold, Bob Su, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng
Biogeosciences, 21, 5517–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates land models – computer-based models that simulate ecosystem dynamics; land carbon, water, and energy cycles; and the role of land in the climate system. It uses machine learning and AI approaches to show that, despite the complexity of land models, they do not perform nearly as well as they could given the amount of information they are provided with about the prediction problem.
Anjana Devanand, Jason Evans, Andy Pitman, Sujan Pal, David Gochis, and Kevin Sampson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3148, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3148, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Including lateral flow increases evapotranspiration near major river channels in high-resolution land surface simulations in southeast Australia, consistent with observations. The 1-km resolution model shows a widespread pattern of dry ridges that does not exist at coarser resolutions. Our results have implications for improved simulations of droughts and future water availability.
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, and Raphael A. Viscarra Rossel
SOIL, 10, 619–636, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Effective management of soil organic carbon (SOC) requires accurate knowledge of its distribution and factors influencing its dynamics. We identify the importance of variables in spatial SOC variation and estimate SOC stocks in Australia using various models. We find there are significant disparities in SOC estimates when different models are used, highlighting the need for a critical re-evaluation of land management strategies that rely on the SOC distribution derived from a single approach.
Jennifer A. Holm, David M. Medvigy, Benjamin Smith, Jeffrey S. Dukes, Claus Beier, Mikhail Mishurov, Xiangtao Xu, Jeremy W. Lichstein, Craig D. Allen, Klaus S. Larsen, Yiqi Luo, Cari Ficken, William T. Pockman, William R. L. Anderegg, and Anja Rammig
Biogeosciences, 20, 2117–2142, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2117-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2117-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Unprecedented climate extremes (UCEs) are expected to have dramatic impacts on ecosystems. We present a road map of how dynamic vegetation models can explore extreme drought and climate change and assess ecological processes to measure and reduce model uncertainties. The models predict strong nonlinear responses to UCEs. Due to different model representations, the models differ in magnitude and trajectory of forest loss. Therefore, we explore specific plant responses that reflect knowledge gaps.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Andrew J. Pitman, Anna M. Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Bastien François, and Benjamin Smith
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 549–576, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Studies analyzing the impact of the future climate on ecosystems employ climate projections simulated by global circulation models. These climate projections display biases that translate into significant uncertainty in projections of the future carbon cycle. Here, we test different methods to constrain the uncertainty in simulations of the carbon cycle over Australia. We find that all methods reduce the bias in the steady-state carbon variables but that temporal properties do not improve.
H. E. Markus Meier, Marcus Reckermann, Joakim Langner, Ben Smith, and Ira Didenkulova
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 519–531, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-519-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-519-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Baltic Earth Assessment Reports summarise the current state of knowledge on Earth system science in the Baltic Sea region. The 10 review articles focus on the regional water, biogeochemical and carbon cycles; extremes and natural hazards; sea-level dynamics and coastal erosion; marine ecosystems; coupled Earth system models; scenario simulations for the regional atmosphere and the Baltic Sea; and climate change and impacts of human use. Some highlights of the results are presented here.
Yuan Zhang, Devaraju Narayanappa, Philippe Ciais, Wei Li, Daniel Goll, Nicolas Vuichard, Martin G. De Kauwe, Laurent Li, and Fabienne Maignan
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9111–9125, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9111-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9111-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
There are a few studies to examine if current models correctly represented the complex processes of transpiration. Here, we use a coefficient Ω, which indicates if transpiration is mainly controlled by vegetation processes or by turbulence, to evaluate the ORCHIDEE model. We found a good performance of ORCHIDEE, but due to compensation of biases in different processes, we also identified how different factors control Ω and where the model is wrong. Our method is generic to evaluate other models.
David Martín Belda, Peter Anthoni, David Wårlind, Stefan Olin, Guy Schurgers, Jing Tang, Benjamin Smith, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6709–6745, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6709-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6709-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a number of augmentations to the ecosystem model LPJ-GUESS, which will allow us to use it in studies of the interactions between the land biosphere and the climate. The new module enables calculation of fluxes of energy and water into the atmosphere that are consistent with the modelled vegetation processes. The modelled fluxes are in fair agreement with observations across 21 sites from the FLUXNET network.
Jon Cranko Page, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Jamie Cleverly, Nina Hinko-Najera, Mark J. Hovenden, Yao Liu, Andy J. Pitman, and Kiona Ogle
Biogeosciences, 19, 1913–1932, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1913-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1913-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Although vegetation responds to climate at a wide range of timescales, models of the land carbon sink often ignore responses that do not occur instantly. In this study, we explore the timescales at which Australian ecosystems respond to climate. We identified that carbon and water fluxes can be modelled more accurately if we include environmental drivers from up to a year in the past. The importance of antecedent conditions is related to ecosystem aridity but is also influenced by other factors.
Anna M. Ukkola, Gab Abramowitz, and Martin G. De Kauwe
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 449–461, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Flux towers provide measurements of water, energy, and carbon fluxes. Flux tower data are invaluable in improving and evaluating land models but are not suited to modelling applications as published. Here we present flux tower data tailored for land modelling, encompassing 170 sites globally. Our dataset resolves several key limitations hindering the use of flux tower data in land modelling, including incomplete forcing variable, data format, and low data quality.
Sami W. Rifai, Martin G. De Kauwe, Anna M. Ukkola, Lucas A. Cernusak, Patrick Meir, Belinda E. Medlyn, and Andy J. Pitman
Biogeosciences, 19, 491–515, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-491-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-491-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Australia's woody ecosystems have experienced widespread greening despite a warming climate and repeated record-breaking droughts and heat waves. Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases plant water use efficiency, yet quantifying the CO2 effect is complicated due to co-occurring effects of global change. Here we harmonized a 38-year satellite record to separate the effects of climate change, land use change, and disturbance to quantify the CO2 fertilization effect on the greening phenomenon.
Adrian Gustafson, Paul A. Miller, Robert G. Björk, Stefan Olin, and Benjamin Smith
Biogeosciences, 18, 6329–6347, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-6329-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-6329-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We performed model simulations of vegetation change for a historic period and a range of climate change scenarios at a high spatial resolution. Projected treeline advance continued at the same or increased rates compared to our historic simulation. Temperature isotherms advanced faster than treelines, revealing a lag in potential vegetation shifts that was modulated by nitrogen availability. At the year 2100 projected treelines had advanced by 45–195 elevational metres depending on the scenario.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andrew J. Pitman, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Anthony P. Walker, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 5639–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, yet the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations by an ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models over Australia and highlighted a number of key areas that lead to model divergence on both short (inter-annual) and long (decadal) timescales.
Mats Lindeskog, Benjamin Smith, Fredrik Lagergren, Ekaterina Sycheva, Andrej Ficko, Hans Pretzsch, and Anja Rammig
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6071–6112, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6071-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6071-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Forests play an important role in the global carbon cycle and for carbon storage. In Europe, forests are intensively managed. To understand how management influences carbon storage in European forests, we implement detailed forest management into the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS. We test the model by comparing model output to typical forestry measures, such as growing stock and harvest data, for different countries in Europe.
Mengyuan Mu, Martin G. De Kauwe, Anna M. Ukkola, Andy J. Pitman, Weidong Guo, Sanaa Hobeichi, and Peter R. Briggs
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 919–938, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-919-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-919-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater can buffer the impacts of drought and heatwaves on ecosystems, which is often neglected in model studies. Using a land surface model with groundwater, we explained how groundwater sustains transpiration and eases heat pressure on plants in heatwaves during multi-year droughts. Our results showed the groundwater’s influences diminish as drought extends and are regulated by plant physiology. We suggest neglecting groundwater in models may overstate projected future heatwave intensity.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Mengyuan Mu, Martin G. De Kauwe, Anna M. Ukkola, Andy J. Pitman, Teresa E. Gimeno, Belinda E. Medlyn, Dani Or, Jinyan Yang, and David S. Ellsworth
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 447–471, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-447-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-447-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface model (LSM) is a critical tool to study land responses to droughts and heatwaves, but lacking comprehensive observations limited past model evaluations. Here we use a novel dataset at a water-limited site, evaluate a typical LSM with a range of competing model hypotheses widely used in LSMs and identify marked uncertainty due to the differing process assumptions. We show the extensive observations constrain model processes and allow better simulated land responses to these extremes.
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Johannes Meyerholt, Sönke Zaehle, Pierre Friedlingstein, Victor Brovkin, Yuanchao Fan, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, Hanna Lee, Daniele Peano, Benjamin Smith, David Wårlind, and Andy J. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020
Cited articles
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 CO2 sink, Science,
348, 895–899, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668, 2015. a, b
Alessandri, A., Catalano, F., De Felice, M., Van Den Hurk, B., Doblas Reyes,
F., Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., and Miller, P. A.: Multi-scale enhancement
of climate prediction over land by increasing the model sensitivity to
vegetation variability in EC-Earth, Clim. Dyn., 49, 1215–1237,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3372-4, 2017. a
Ashok, K., Behera, S. K., Rao, S. A., Weng, H., and Yamagata, T.: El Niño
Modoki and its possible teleconnection, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003798, 2007. a, b, c
Ashok, K., Iizuka, S., Rao, S. A., Saji, N. H., and Lee, W.-J.: Processes and
boreal summer impacts of the 2004 El Niño Modoki: An AGCM study,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036313, 2009. a, b
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. Roy. Soc. B,, 373, 20170304, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0304, 2018. a
Bellenger, H., Guilyardi, E., Leloup, J., Lengaigne, M., and Vialard, J.: ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5, Clim. Dyn., 42,
1999–2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1783-z, 2014. a
Boone, A., Belamari, S., Brun, E., Calvet, J.-C., Decharme, B., Faroux, S.,
Gibelin, A.-L., Giordani, H., Lafont, S., Lebeaupin, C., Le Moigne, P.,
Mahfouf, J.-F., Martin, E., Masson, V., Mironov, D., Morin, S., Noilhan, J., Tulet, P., Van Den Hurk, B., and Vionnet, V.: SURFEX scientific
documentation, SURFEX v7.2 – Issue no2 – 2012, 2012. a
Cai, W., Wang, G., Dewitte, B., Wu, L., Santoso, A., Takahashi, K., Yang, Y.,
Carréric, A., and McPhaden, M. J.: Increased variability of eastern
Pacific El Niño under greenhouse warming, Nature, 564, 201–206,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0776-9, 2018. a
Capotondi, A., Wittenberg, A. T., Newman, M., Di Lorenzo, E., Yu, J.-Y.,
Braconnot, P., Cole, J., Dewitte, B., Giese, B., Guilyardi, E., Jin, F.-F.,
Karnauskas, K., Kirtman, B., Lee, T., Schneider, N., Xue, Y., and Yeh, S.-W.:
Understanding ENSO Diversity, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 921–938, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00117.1, 2015. a
Compo, G. P., Whitaker, J. S., Sardeshmukh, P. D., Matsui, N., Allan, R. J.,
Yin, X., Gleason, B. E., Vose, R. S., Rutledge, G., Bessemoulin, P.,
Brönnimann, S., Brunet, M., Crouthamel, R. I., Grant, A. N., Groisman,
P. Y., Jones, P. D., Kruk, M. C., Kruger, A. C., Marshall, G. J., Maugeri,
M., Mok, H. Y., Nordli, Ø., Ross, T. F., Trigo, R. M., Wang, X. L.,
Woodruff, S. D., and Worley, S. J.: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis
Project, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.776, 2011. a
Donguy, J.-R. and Dessier, A.: El Niño-Like Events Observed in the Tropical
Pacific, Mon. Weather Rev., 111, 2136–2139,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<2136:ENLEOI>2.0.CO;2, 1983. a
Fang, Y., Michalak, A. M., Schwalm, C. R., Huntzinger, D. N., Berry, J. A.,
Ciais, P., Piao, S., Poulter, B., Fisher, J. B., Cook, R. B., Hayes, D.,
Huang, M., Ito, A., Jain, A., Lei, H., Lu, C., Mao, J., Parazoo, N. C., Peng, S., Ricciuto, D. M., Shi, X., Tao, B., Tian, H., Wang, W., Wei, Y., and Yang, J.: Global land carbon sink response to temperature and precipitation varies
with ENSO phase, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 064007,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6e8e, 2017. a
Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Anderegg, W. R. L., Christoffersen, B. O., Dietze,
M. C., Farrior, C. E., Holm, J. A., Hurtt, G. C., Knox, R. G., Lawrence,
P. J., Lichstein, J. W., Longo, M., Matheny, A. M., Medvigy, D.,
Muller-Landau, H. C., Powell, T. L., Serbin, S. P., Sato, H., Shuman, J. K., Smith, B., Trugman, A. T., Viskari, T., Verbeeck, H., Weng, E., Xu, C., Xu, X., Zhang, T., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Vegetation demographics in Earth System Models: A review of progress and priorities, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 35–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13910, 2018. a
Fonseca, M. G., Anderson, L. O., Arai, E., Shimabukuro, Y. E., Xaud, H. A. M., Xaud, M. R., Madani, N., Wagner, F. H., and Aragão, L. E. O. C.: Climatic and anthropogenic drivers of northern Amazon fires during the 2015–2016 El Niño event, Ecol. Appl., 27, 2514–2527,
https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1628, 2017. a
Freund, M. B., Brown, J. R., Henley, B. J., Karoly, D. J., and Brown, J. N.:
Warming Patterns Affect El Niño Diversity in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models,
J. Climate, 33, 8237–8260, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0890.1, 2020. a
Goll, D. S., Vuichard, N., Maignan, F., Jornet-Puig, A., Sardans, J., Violette, A., Peng, S., Sun, Y., Kvakic, M., Guimberteau, M., Guenet, B., Zaehle, S., Penuelas, J., Janssens, I., and Ciais, P.: A representation of the phosphorus cycle for ORCHIDEE (revision 4520), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3745–3770, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3745-2017, 2017. a
Hantson, S., Kelley, D. I., Arneth, A., Harrison, S. P., Archibald, S., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Hickler, T., Lasslop, G., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Melton, J. R., Nieradzik, L., Rabin, S. S., Prentice, I. C., Sheehan, T., Sitch, S., Teckentrup, L., Voulgarakis, A., and Yue, C.: Quantitative assessment of fire and vegetation properties in simulations with fire-enabled vegetation models from the Fire Model Intercomparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3299–3318, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3299-2020, 2020. a
Harris, S. and Lucas, C.: Understanding the variability of Australian fire
weather between 1973 and 2017, Plos One, 14, e0222328,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222328, 2019. a
Haverd, V., Ahlström, A., Smith, B., and Canadell, J. G.: Carbon cycle
responses of semi-arid ecosystems to positive asymmetry in rainfall, Glob.
Change Biol., 23, 793–800, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13412, 2017. a
Haverd, V., Smith, B., Nieradzik, L., Briggs, P. R., Woodgate, W., Trudinger, C. M., Canadell, J. G., and Cuntz, M.: A new version of the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2995–3026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2995-2018, 2018. a
Hickler, T., Vohland, K., Feehan, J., Miller, P. A., Smith, B., Costa, L.,
Giesecke, T., Fronzek, S., Carter, T. R., Cramer, W., Kühn, I., and Sykes,
M. T.: Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural
vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation
model, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 21, 50–63,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00613.x, 2012. a
Huntingford, C., Atkin, O., Martínez-de la Torre, A., Mercado, L., Heskel,
M. A., Harper, A. B., Bloomfield, K., O'Sullivan, O., Reich, P., Wythers, K.,
Butler, E., Chen, M., Griffin, K., Meir, P., Tjoelker, M., Turnbull, M.,
Sitch, S., Wiltshire, A., and Malhi, Y.: Implications of improved
representations of plant respiration in a changing climate, Nat.
Commun., 8, 1602, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01774-z, 2017. a
Kato, E., Kinoshita, T., Ito, A., Kawamiya, M., and Yamagata, Y.: Evaluation of spatially explicit emission scenario of land-use change and biomass burning using a process-based biogeochemical model, J. Land Use Sci., 8,
104–122, https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2011.628705, 2013. a
Keller, K. M., Lienert, S., Bozbiyik, A., Stocker, T. F., Churakova (Sidorova), O. V., Frank, D. C., Klesse, S., Koven, C. D., Leuenberger, M., Riley, W. J., Saurer, M., Siegwolf, R., Weigt, R. B., and Joos, F.: 20th century changes in carbon isotopes and water-use efficiency: tree-ring-based evaluation of the CLM4.5 and LPX-Bern models, Biogeosciences, 14, 2641–2673, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2641-2017, 2017. a
Kelley, D. and Harrison, S.: Enhanced Australian carbon sink despite increased wildfire during the 21st century, Environ. Res. Lett., 9,
104015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104015, 2014. a
Kim, H.: Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3 Atmospheric Boundary Conditions
(Experiment 1), Data Integration and Analysis System (DIAS), https://doi.org/10.20783/DIAS.501, 2017. a
Kim, J.-S., Kug, J.-S., Yoon, J.-H., and Jeong, S.-J.: Increased atmospheric
CO2 growth rate during El Niño driven by reduced terrestrial
productivity in the CMIP5 ESMs, J. Climate, 29, 8783–8805,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00672.1, 2016. a
Kim, J.-S., Kug, J.-S., and Jeong, S.-J.: Intensification of terrestrial
carbon cycle related to El Niño-Southern Oscillation under greenhouse
warming, Nat. Commun., 8, 1674, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01831-7,
2017. a
Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Ogée, J., Polcher, J.,
Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic
global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere
system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, 1, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199, 2005. a
Kug, J.-S., Jin, F.-F., and An, S.-I.: Two Types of El Niño Events: Cold
Tongue El Niño and Warm Pool El Niño, J. Climate, 22, 1499–1515,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2624.1, 2009. a
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Doney, S. C., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D. S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Hoffman, F. M., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Johannessen, T., Jones, C. D., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Goldewijk, K. K., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., Neill, C., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Patra, P., Peregon, A., Peters, W., Peylin, P., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rocher, M., Rödenbeck, C., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sutton, A., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., Wright, R., Zaehle, S., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2018, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018, 2018. a
Li, W., Zhang, P., Ye, J., Li, L., and Baker, P. A.: Impact of two different
types of El Niño events on the Amazon climate and ecosystem productivity,
J. Plant Ecol., 4, 91–99, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtq039, 2011. a
Lindsey, R.: In Watching for El Niño and La Niña, NOAA Adapts to Global
Warming, available at:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/watching-el-niño-and-la-niña-noaa-adapts-global-warming,
(last access: 27 July 2020), 2013. a
Mariani, M., Fletcher, M.-S., Holz, A., and Nyman, P.: ENSO controls
interannual fire activity in southeast Australia, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 43, 10891–10900, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070572, 2016. a
Martens, C., Hickler, T., Davis-Reddy, C., Engelbrecht, F., Higgins, S. I., von
Maltitz, G. P., Midgley, G. F., Pfeiffer, M., and Scheiter, S.: Large
uncertainties in future biome changes in Africa call for flexible climate
adaptation strategies, Glob. Change Biol., 27, 340–358,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15390, 2020. a
McGuire, A. D., Sitch, S., Clein, J. S., Dargaville, R., Esser, G., Foley, J., Heimann, M., Joos, F., Kaplan, J., Kicklighter, D. W., Meier, R. A., Melillo, J. M., Moore III, B., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., Reichenau, T.,
Schloss, A., Tian, H., Williams, L. J., and Wittenberg, U.: Carbon balance of
the terrestrial biosphere in the Twentieth Century: Analyses of CO2,
climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 183–206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001298, 2001. a
Melton, J. R. and Arora, V. K.: Competition between plant functional types in the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) v. 2.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 323–361, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-323-2016, 2016. a
Oleson, K., Lawrence, D., Bonan, G. B., Drewniak, B., Huang, M., Koven, C.,
Levis, S., Li, F., Riley, W., Subin, Z., Swenson, S., Thornton, P., Bozbiyik, A., Fisher, R., Heald, C., Kluzek, E., Lamarque, J. F., Lawrence, P., Leung, L., and Yang, Z.-L.: Technical description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM) (No. NCAR/TN-503+STR), https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RR1W7M, 2013. a
Park, S.-W., Kim, J.-S., Kug, J.-S., Stuecker, M. F., Kim, I.-W., and Williams, M.: Two Aspects of Decadal ENSO Variability Modulating the Long-Term Global Carbon Cycle, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086390,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086390, 2020. a
Powell, T. L., Galbraith, D. R., Christoffersen, B. O., Harper, A., Imbuzeiro, H. M. A., Rowland, L., Almeida, S., Brando, P. M., da 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, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12390,
2013. a
Qian, H., Joseph, R., and Zeng, N.: Response of the terrestrial carbon cycle
to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, Tellus B, 60, 537–550,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2008.00360.x, 2008. a
Reick, C. H., Raddatz, T., Brovkin, V., and Gayler, V.: Representation of
natural and anthropogenic land cover change in MPI-ESM, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 459–482, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20022, 2013. a
Ren, H.-L. and Jin, F.-F.: Niño indices for two types of ENSO, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 38, 4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046031, 2011. a
Rodell, M., Houser, P. R., Jambor, U., Gottschalck, J., Mitchell, K., Meng,
C.-J., Arsenault, K., Cosgrove, B., Radakovich, J., Bosilovich, M., Entin,
J. K., Walker, J. P., Lohmann, D., and Toll, D.: The Global Land Data
Assimilation System, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85, 381–394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-3-381, 2004. a
Rödenbeck, C., Zaehle, S., Keeling, R., and Heimann, M.: History of El
Niño impacts on the global carbon cycle 1957–2017: a quantification from
atmospheric CO2 data, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B, 373, 20170303, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0303, 2018. a, b
Santoso, A., Mcphaden, M. J., and Cai, W.: The Defining Characteristics of
ENSO Extremes and the Strong 2015/2016 El Niño, Rev. Geophys.,
55, 1079–1129, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000560, 2017. a
Scheiter, S. and Higgins, S. I.: Impacts of climate change on the vegetation of Africa: an adaptive dynamic vegetation modelling approach, Glob. Change
Biol., 15, 2224–2246, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01838.x, 2009. a
Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W.,
Kaplan, J. O., Levis, S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., and
Venevsky, S.: Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and
terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model,
Glob. Change Biol., 9, 161–185, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x,
2003. a, b, c
Smith, B.: Title LPJ GUESS Ecosystem Model, available at: http://web.nateko.lu.se/lpj-guess/contact.html
last access: 29 October 2020.
Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., and Sykes, M. T.: Representation of vegetation
dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: Comparing two
contrasting approaches within European climate space, Global Ecol.
Biogeogr., 10, 621–637, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.t01-1-00256.x,
2001. a
Smith, B., Wårlind, D., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Leadley, P., Siltberg, J., and Zaehle, S.: Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model, Biogeosciences, 11, 2027–2054, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014, 2014. a, b, c, d, e
Smith, N. G., Malyshev, S. L., Shevliakova, E., Kattge, J., and Dukes, J. S.:
Foliar temperature acclimation reduces simulated carbon sensitivity to
climate, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 407–411, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2878, 2015. a
Taschetto, A. S. and England, M. H.: El Niño Modoki Impacts on Australian
Rainfall, J. Climate, 22, 3167–3174,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2589.1, 2009. a, b
Teckentrup, L.: Analysis code 'Examining the senistivity of the terrestrial carbon cycle, available at: https://github.com/lteckentrup/nino_experiment, last access: 2 February 2021.
Teckentrup, L., Harrison, S. P., Hantson, S., Heil, A., Melton, J. R., Forrest, M., Li, F., Yue, C., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Sitch, S., and Lasslop, G.: Response of simulated burned area to historical changes in environmental and anthropogenic factors: a comparison of seven fire models, Biogeosciences, 16, 3883–3910, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-3883-2019, 2019. a
Thonicke, K., Venevsky, S., Sitch, S., and Cramer, W.: The role of fire
disturbance for global vegetation dynamics: Coupling fire into a Dynamic
Global Vegetation Model, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10, 661–677,
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00175.x, 2001. a, b
Viovy, N.: CRUNCEP Version 7 - Atmospheric Forcing Data for the Community Land Model, Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, https://doi.org/10.5065/PZ8F-F017, available at: http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds314.3/ (last access: 20 July 2020), 2018. a
Vitousek, P. M.: Litterfall, Nutrient Cycling, and Nutrient Limitation in
Tropical Forests, Ecology, 65, 285–298, https://doi.org/10.2307/1939481, 1984. a
Wang, B., Luo, X., Yang, Y.-M., Sun, W., Cane, M. A., Cai, W., Yeh, S.-W., and Liu, J.: Historical change of El Niño properties sheds light on future changes of extreme El Niño, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116, 22512–22517, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911130116, 2019. a
Wang, H., Atkin, O. K., Keenan, T. F., Smith, N. G., Wright, I., Bloomfield,
K. J., Kattge, J., Reich, P., and Prentice, I. C.: Acclimation of leaf
respiration consistent with optimal photosynthetic capacity, Glob. Change
Biol., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14980, 2020. a
Wang, J., Zeng, N., Wang, M., Jiang, F., Chen, J., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A. K., Jiang, Z., Ju, W., Lienert, S., Nabel, J., Sitch, S., Viovy, N., Wang, H., and Wiltshire, A. J.: Contrasting interannual atmospheric CO2 variabilities and their terrestrial mechanisms for two types of El Niños, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 10333–10345, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10333-2018, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Weiss, M., Miller, P. A., van den Hurk, B. J. J. M., van Noije, T.,
Ştefănescu, S., Haarsma, R., van Ulft, L. H., Hazeleger, W., Le Sager, P.,
Smith, B., and Schurgers, G.: Contribution of Dynamic Vegetation Phenology
to Decadal Climate Predictability, J. Climate, 27, 8563–8577,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00684.1, 2014. a
Weng, H., Ashok, K., Behera, S. K., Rao, S. A., and Yamagata, T.: Impacts of
recent El Niño Modoki on dry/wet conditions in the Pacific rim during
boreal summer, Clim. Dyn., 29, 113–129,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0234-0, 2007. a, b
Whitley, R., Beringer, J., Hutley, L. B., Abramowitz, G., De Kauwe, M. G., Evans, B., Haverd, V., Li, L., Moore, C., Ryu, Y., Scheiter, S., Schymanski, S. J., Smith, B., Wang, Y.-P., Williams, M., and Yu, Q.: Challenges and opportunities in land surface modelling of savanna ecosystems, Biogeosciences, 14, 4711–4732, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4711-2017, 2017. a
Woodward, F. I. and Lomas, M. R.: Vegetation dynamics – simulating responses
to climatic change, Biol. Rev., 79, 643–670,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793103006419, 2004.
a
Wramneby, A., Smith, B., and Samuelsson, P.: Hot spots of vegetation-climate
feedbacks under future greenhouse forcing in Europe, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 115, D21, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014307, 2010. a
Wu, Z., Ahlström, A., Smith, B., Ardö, J., Eklundh, L., Fensholt, R.,
and Lehsten, V.: Climate data induced uncertainty in model-based estimations
of terrestrial primary productivity, Environ. Res. Lett., 12,
064013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6fd8, 2017. a, b
Yoshimura, K. and Kanamitsu, M.: Dynamical Global Downscaling of Global
Reanalysis, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 2983–2998,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2281.1, 2008. a
Zaehle, S. and Friend, A. D.: Carbon and nitrogen cycle dynamics in the O-CN
land surface model: 1. Model description, site-scale evaluation, and
sensitivity to parameter estimates, Glob. Biogeochemical Cy., 24, 1,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003521, 2010. a
Zaehle, S., Medlyn, B. E., De Kauwe, M. G., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C.,
Hickler, T., Luo, Y., Wang, Y.-P., El-Masri, B., Thornton, P., Jain, A.,
Wang, S., Warlind, D., Weng, E., Parton, W., Iversen, C. M., Gallet-Budynek,
A., McCarthy, H., Finzi, A., Hanson, P. J., Prentice, I. C., Oren, R., and
Norby, R. J.: Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models
against observations from two temperate Free-Air CO2 Enrichment studies,
New Phytol., 202, 803–822, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12697, 2014. a
Zhang, W., Jansson, C., Miller, P. A., Smith, B., and Samuelsson, P.: Biogeophysical feedbacks enhance the Arctic terrestrial carbon sink in regional Earth system dynamics, Biogeosciences, 11, 5503–5519, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-5503-2014, 2014. a
Zhang, Y., Dannenberg, M. P., Hwang, T., and Song, C.: El Niño-Southern
Oscillation-Induced Variability of Terrestrial Gross Primary Production
During the Satellite Era, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeosci., 8, 2419–2431, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG005117, 2019. a, b, c
Zhu, Z., Bi, J., Pan, Y., Ganguly, S., Anav, A., Xu, L., Samanta, A., Piao, S.,
Nemani, R., and Myneni, R.: Global Data Sets of Vegetation Leaf Area Index
(LAI) 3g and Fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FPAR) 3g
Derived from Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies (GIMMS) Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI3g) for the Period 1981 to 2011, Remote
Sens., 5, 927–948, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5020927, 2013. a
Zobler, L.: A world soil file for global climate modelling, NASA Technical
Memorandum, 32, 87802, https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/540, 1986. a
Short summary
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) describes changes in the sea surface temperature patterns of the Pacific Ocean. This influences the global weather, impacting vegetation on land. There are two types of El Niño: central Pacific (CP) and eastern Pacific (EP). In this study, we explored the long-term impacts on the carbon balance on land linked to the two El Niño types. Using a dynamic vegetation model, we simulated what would happen if only either CP or EP El Niño events had occurred.
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) describes changes in the sea surface temperature...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint