<?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" article-type="research-article">
  <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-18-4091-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Variable tree rooting strategies are key for modelling the distribution, productivity
and evapotranspiration of <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> tropical evergreen forests</article-title><alt-title>Variable tree rooting strategies in a DGVM</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Variable tree rooting strategies in a DGVM}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{B.~Sakschewski et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Sakschewski</surname><given-names>Boris</given-names></name>
          <email>boris.sakschewski@pik-potsdam.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>von Bloh</surname><given-names>Werner</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Drüke</surname><given-names>Markus</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8004-7153</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Sörensson</surname><given-names>Anna Amelia</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Ruscica</surname><given-names>Romina</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0127-9579</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Langerwisch</surname><given-names>Fanny</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Billing</surname><given-names>Maik</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Bereswill</surname><given-names>Sarah</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7 aff8">
          <name><surname>Hirota</surname><given-names>Marina</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1958-3651</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff8">
          <name><surname>Oliveira</surname><given-names>Rafael Silva</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6392-2526</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Heinke</surname><given-names>Jens</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Thonicke</surname><given-names>Kirsten</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5283-4937</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin,
Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la
Atmósfera (CIMA), Universidad de Buenos Aires – Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
Científicas y Técnicas (UBA-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Institut Franco-Argentin d'Études sur le Climat et ses Impacts,
Unité Mixte Internationale (UMI-IFAECI CNRS-CONICET-UBA), Buenos Aires, Argentina</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences, Palacký University Olomouc, 78371 Olomouc, Czech Republic</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Campus Universitário Reitor João David Ferreira Lima, Trindade, CEP: 88040-900, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>8</label><institution>University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Cidade Universitária “Zeferino
Vaz”, CEP 13083-970, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Boris Sakschewski (boris.sakschewski@pik-potsdam.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>12</day><month>July</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>13</issue>
      <fpage>4091</fpage><lpage>4116</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>27</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>9</day><month>April</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>April</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</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/.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e232">A variety of modelling studies have suggested tree rooting depth
as a key variable to explain evapotranspiration rates, productivity and the
geographical distribution of evergreen forests in tropical South America.
However, none of those studies have acknowledged resource investment, timing and
physical constraints of tree rooting depth within a competitive environment,
undermining the ecological realism of their results. Here, we present an
approach of implementing variable rooting strategies and dynamic root growth
into the LPJmL4.0 (Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land) dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) and apply it to tropical and sub-tropical
South America under contemporary climate conditions. We show how competing
rooting strategies which underlie the trade-off between above- and
below-ground carbon investment lead to more realistic simulation of
intra-annual productivity and evapotranspiration and consequently of
forest cover and spatial biomass distribution. We find that climate and soil
depth determine a spatially heterogeneous pattern of mean rooting depth and
below-ground biomass across the study region. Our findings support the
hypothesis that the ability of evergreen trees to adjust their rooting
systems to seasonally dry climates is crucial to explaining the current
dominance, productivity and evapotranspiration of evergreen forests in
tropical South America.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e244">Tropical evergreen forest is the naturally dominant biome type in
South America over a large climatic range including regions with a marked
dry season      (Hirota et al., 2011;
Xiao et al., 2006). To withstand seasonal shortages of precipitation and
sustain productivity, trees with evergreen phenology often have access to
deep soil water via deep roots
(Brum
et al., 2019; Canadell et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2012;
Markewitz et al., 2010). Consequently, recent studies have suggested a
heterogeneous spatial pattern of maximum rooting depth across tropical
forest biomes in South<?pagebreak page4092?> America which differs by orders of magnitude depending on local groundwater, soil and climate conditions
(Canadell et al.,
1996; Fan et al., 2017). So far different modelling approaches have been
presented which have highlighted the crucial role of rooting depth in the
productivity and therefore the distribution of evergreen trees in
South America. In a pioneering study more than 20 years ago,
Kleidon and Heimann (1998) systematically
searched for rooting strategies which yield the highest net primary productivity
over South America with a dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) to explain
intra-annual rates of evapotranspiration (ET) and vegetation cover. Follow-up studies have further
underlined the importance of deep roots for the water cycle of South America
(Kleidon and Heimann, 2000). Accordingly,
Lee et al. (2005) found that allowing for deep
roots and hydraulic redistribution of water in the soil column in a general
circulation model (GCM) improved simulated Amazon forest productivity and
ET in the dry season.
Baker et al. (2008) came to similar
results when introducing deep roots in a land surface model.
Ichii et al. (2007) found
that constraining rooting depth across the Amazon based on satellite-derived
data of forest productivity yields similar results in a terrestrial
ecosystem model. More recently,
Langan et al. (2017) showed for the same study area how diverse rooting strategies in a
tree individual and a trait-based DGVM can improve simulated intra-annual
productivity and ET as well as better explain patterns of different tropical
biome types and biomass in fire-prone ecosystems. While these studies are
important steps in acknowledging the diversity of tree rooting depth and its
effects on ET and forest productivity, some assumptions of the underlying
models might decrease the reliability of their results. These assumptions are
related to (1) resource investment, (2) temporal growth and (3) physical
constraints of rooting depth.</p>
      <p id="d1e247">(1) Most global vegetation models so far have not accounted for coarse roots
(Warren et al., 2015) even though such roots can
make up the majority of total root biomass
(Xiao et al.,
2003). This approach in global vegetation models may be sufficient when employing shallow tree rooting
strategies only, but with increasing rooting depth, costs for coarse roots
increase substantially. Since the amount of resources trees can allocate to
their processes and structures is finite, a local adaptation of tree rooting
depth must follow a trade-off between above- and below-ground resource
investment      (Nikolova et al., 2011).
Generally, above-ground investments in leaf and stem growth can increase
light absorption and CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> uptake, while below-ground investments can
increase the uptake of water and nutrients. Depending on local environmental
and competitive conditions, one or the other allocation strategy might be
more advantageous, eventually leading to substantial regional variation in
the mean ratios between below-ground and above-ground biomass
(Leuschner et al., 2007; Mokany et al.,
2006). Therefore, the simulated spectrum of tree rooting strategies which
can survive and co-exist should be in accordance with this crucial
trade-off. (2) In contrast to above-ground stem growth, most global
vegetation models do not simulate gradual root growth
(Warren et al., 2015). Instead simulated
vegetation types are assigned a constant relative distribution of fine roots
throughout the soil column at any point in space and time
(Best
et al., 2011; Lawrence et al., 2011; Schaphoff et al., 2018a; Smith et al.,
2014). As under the above-mentioned simplification under (1), this approach
may be sufficient when accounting for shallow rooting strategies only, but
when the maximum tree rooting depth is strongly increased, it is
questionable that the time needed to reach this depth is negligible,
especially when accounting for competition of different vegetation types.
Rooting depth increases rather gradually and non-linearly over a tree's
lifetime with a velocity driven by a mix of plastic optimization and
allometric determination
(Brum
et al., 2019; Brunner et al., 2015; Nikolova et al., 2011; Poorter et al.,
2012; Warren et al., 2015). Even though smaller-scale models have
implemented root optimization schemes in the past
(Schymanski et al., 2008), the
knowledge base for a mechanistic bottom-up modelling approach of plastic
root optimization is very sparse
(Jenik,
1978; Poorter et al., 2012; Warren et al., 2015) and knowledge of certain
allometric rules
(Brum
et al., 2019; Eshel and Grünzweig, 2013; Mokany et al., 2006) seems
enough to be applied in global vegetation models. (3) Most global vegetation
models so far have not accounted for a location-dependent soil depth but have applied
a constant soil depth across the globe
(Best
et al., 2011; Guimberteau et al., 2017; Lawrence et al., 2011; Ostle et al.,
2009; Schaphoff et al., 2018a; Smith et al., 2014). Again, this approach may
be sufficient when accounting for shallow rooting strategies only, but
allowing for deep tree rooting strategies should go in parallel with accounting for their
potential physical barriers. Recent data products on global soil depth now
enable the better constraining of rooting depth in vegetation models
across scales (Pelletier et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e259">Here we overcome the above-mentioned limitations and present a new approach
of diversifying tree rooting strategies of tropical plant functional types
(PFTs) in the DGVM LPJmL4.0 (Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed
Land; Schaphoff et al., 2018a) which increases the
ecological reliability with the following aspects: (1) a global product of soil
depth restricts the maximum tree rooting depth; (2) PFTs are sub-divided
according to a broad spectrum of different possible tree rooting strategies
with a range of maximum rooting depths between 0.5 and 18 m; (3) all sub-PFTs
grow in competition and their individual performance determines dominance;
(4) dominance is supported by the best-performing sub-PFTs increasing their
establishment rate; (5) sub-PFTs have to invest carbon in coarse roots,
i.e. acknowledging the trade-off between growing deeper roots and allocating
available carbon to other compartments (stem and leaf growth); and (6) sub-PFT roots are growing deeper over time depending on tree height. Given
these new model developments we here re-evaluate the hypotheses that, with regard to tropical evergreen forests in South America,
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>I.</label>
      <p id="d1e264">climate and soil depth determine dominant tree rooting strategies,</p></list-item><list-item><label>II.</label>
      <p id="d1e268">tree rooting depth influences distribution and dominance, and</p></list-item><list-item><label>III.</label>
      <p id="d1e272">diverse tree rooting strategies are key for explaining rates of
evapotranspiration and productivity.</p></list-item></list>
Therefore, we compare
several model versions of LPJmL4.0 differing in the above-mentioned model
developments and evaluate simulated evapotranspiration, productivity,
biomass and spatial distribution of evergreen and deciduous tree PFTs using
different sources of validation data.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page4093?><sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>The LPJmL4.0 model</title>
      <p id="d1e291">LPJmL4.0 is a process-based dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) which
simulates the surface energy balance, water fluxes, fire disturbance, carbon
fluxes and stocks of the global land   (Schaphoff
et al., 2018a). Plant productivity is modelled on the basis of leaf-level
photosynthesis responding to climatic and environmental conditions,
atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration, canopy conductance, autotrophic
respiration, phenology, and management intensity. Fire disturbance is
modelled using the simple fire module Glob-FIRM (Thonicke et al., 2001),
which relates the length of the fire season to fractional annual area burnt.
The model simulates 11 plant functional types (PFTs), 3 bioenergy functional
types (BFTs) and 12 crop functional types (CFTs) to represent average
plants of natural vegetation, bioenergy plantations and agriculture,
respectively. Three PFTs represent the natural vegetation of the tropics and
sub-tropics, namely the “tropical broadleaved evergreen tree” mainly
representing tropical evergreen forest; the “tropical broadleaved deciduous
tree” representing tropical dry forest and the woody component of savanna;
and “tropical herbs” representing the herbaceous layer in grasslands,
savanna and forests. The standard spatial model resolution is a
0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude–latitude grid. For each grid cell
the fractional coverage of bioenergy and agricultural BFTs and CFTs follows
a prescribed land-use data set, whereas in the remaining grid-cell area,
natural PFTs grow in competition.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>A new tree rooting scheme for LPJmL4.0</title>
      <p id="d1e336">All changes made to LPJmL4.0 in order to simulate variable tree rooting
strategies resulted in a new sub-version of LPJmL4.0 which we call
LPJmL4.0-VR hereafter (where VR stands for variable roots). A
detailed description of our modelling approach can be found in Appendix A.</p>
      <p id="d1e339">For our purposes we extended the general maximum soil depth of 3 m in
LPJmL4.0 to 20 m in LPJmL4.0-VR but restrict it to local soil depth
information at the spatial model resolution of 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; see Sect. 2.3.2. We applied the same basic scheme for vertical
soil layer partitioning from LPJmL4.0   (Schaphoff
et al., 2018a) in order to keep model differences small (Appendix A, Sect. A1.1 and Table A1). We increased the number of rooting strategies for each
of the two tropical tree PFTs (broadleaved evergreen and broadleaved
deciduous), by splitting each PFT into 10 sub-PFTs. Each of those 10
sub-PFTs was assigned a different maximum vertical distribution of fine
roots throughout the soil column following classical allometric rules
applied in LPJmL4.0 (Appendix A, Sect. A1.3 and Fig. A1). Those
distributions were chosen in order to allow the sub-PFTs to reach different
maximum rooting depths in discrete steps between 0.5 and 18 m (Table A2). We
here refer to the depth at which the cumulated fine-root biomass from the
soil surface downwards amounts to 95 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Eq. A3). To account for additional carbon investments needed to grow deeper
rooting systems, we introduced two new carbon pools, namely root sapwood and
root heartwood (Appendix A, Sect. A1.4). Like stem sapwood in LPJmL4.0,
root sapwood in LPJmL4.0-VR also needs to satisfy the assumptions of the pipe
model   (Shinozaki et al., 1964; Waring et al.,
1982). This implementation creates a trade-off between below-ground and
above-ground carbon investment. To allow for dynamic root growth, we
implemented a logistic root growth function, which calculates a general
maximum conceivable tree rooting depth depending on tree height (Appendix A,
Sect. A1.5), in an approximation of the findings of
Brum et al. (2019). Consequently,
each sub-PFT shows a logistic growth of rooting depth which is dependent on
the sub-PFT height and which saturates towards its specific
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. A2). Therefore, limitations of above-ground
sub-PFT growth due to below-ground carbon investment of different tree
rooting strategies (Sect. 2.2.4) are equal in the sapling phase of all
sub-PFTs (starting from bare ground) but diverge with increasing sub-PFT
height. In the case that temporal root depths exceed the grid-cell specific
local soil depth (as prescribed by local soil depth information; see Sect. 2.3.2), all the respective fine-root biomass exceeding this soil depth is
transferred to the last soil layer matching this soil depth (see also Fig. 1
and Supplementary Video 1 for a visualization of new below-ground carbon
pools and root growth in LPJmL4.0-VR available at <uri>http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~borissa/LPJmL4_VR/Supplementary_Video_1.pptx</uri>, last access: 20 March 2020).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e405">Visualization of below-ground carbon allocation to different carbon
pools of a tree PFT in LPJmL4.0-VR with a height of 40 m and a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 14 m (sub-PFT no. 8 in Table A2) growing in a
grid cell with a soil depth of 20 m <bold>(a)</bold> and a soil depth of 7 m
<bold>(b)</bold>. As with stem sapwood, root sapwood also needs to satisfy the
pipe model. In the first soil layer the root sapwood cross-sectional area is
equal to the stem sapwood cross-sectional area, as all water taken up by fine
roots needs to pass this layer. In each following soil layer, the root
sapwood cross-sectional area is reduced by the sum of the relative amount of
fine roots of all soil layers above, thus adjusting the amount of sapwood
needed to satisfy the pipe model. Please also see Supplementary Video 1 for
a visualization of root growth and development of below-ground carbon pools
over time available at <uri>http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~borissa/LPJmL4_VR/Supplementary_Video_1.pptx</uri>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e440">To fully investigate the effects of 20 tropical sub-PFTs growing in
competition, we adjusted the original PFT establishment routine of LPJmL4.0
(Appendix A, Sect. A1.6). The adjustments lead to a higher establishment rate
for productive sub-PFTs relative to their spatial dominance and vice versa,
without changing the overall establishment rate as originally set by
Prentice et al. (1993). The adjusted establishment routine
has the effect that non-viable sub-PFTs are outcompeted over time.
Furthermore, we increased the universal and<?pagebreak page4094?> constant maximum background
mortality rate of tree PFTs in LPJmL4.0-VR to 7 % in order to
counter-balance increased survival rates and therefore biomass accumulation
under enhanced water access (Appendix A, Sect. A1.7).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Model input data</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>2.3.1</label><title>Climate input data</title>
      <p id="d1e458">All versions of LPJmL used in this study (Sect. 2.4) were forced with four
different climate inputs, each delivering the climate variables air
temperature, precipitation, and long-wave and short-wave downward radiation at
daily or monthly resolution:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e463">A combination of the WATCH data set (Weedon et al., 2011) and the WFDEI data set (Weedon et al., 2014), as used in the
ISIMIP
(<uri>https://www.isimip.org/gettingstarted/input-data-bias-correction/details/5/</uri>, last access: 20 June 2019), was used. This input data set is called WATCH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>WFDEI hereafter.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e477">The Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3 (GSWP3) was used
(Dirmeyer et al., 2006; <uri>http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/GSWP3/index.html</uri>, last access: 20 June 2019).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e484">The Noah Global Land Assimilation System version 2.0 was used (GLDAS;
Rodell et al., 2004).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e488">Climate forcing as in Schaphoff et al. (2018a) was used,
with monthly precipitation provided by the Global Precipitation Climatology
Centre (GPCC Full Data Reanalysis version 7.0; Becker
et al., 2013), daily mean temperature from the Climate Research Unit (CRU TS
version 3.23; Harris et al., 2014),
short-wave downward radiation and net downward radiation reanalysis data from
ERA-Interim
(Dee
et al., 2011), and number of wet days from New et al. (2000)
used to allocate monthly precipitation to individual days. This input data set is called CRU hereafter.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>2.3.2</label><title>Soil and sediment thickness</title>
      <p id="d1e499">For this study, we regridded a global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km soil and sediment thickness
product   (Pelletier et al., 2016) to the 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial resolution of LPJmL4.0-VR, set the global maximum
value to 20 m according to the maximum soil depth chosen for LPJmL4.0-VR
(Sect. 2.2 and Appendix A, Sect. A1.1), and used the resulting map as grid-cell-specific model input (Fig. A3). Regridding was performed using the software
R  (R Core Team, 2019) with the package “raster”
(Hijmans and van Etten, 2016). We used the aggregate function to
calculate the average value of all data entries of  Pelletier et al. (2016) falling into the coarser 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid of LPJmL.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Model versions and simulation protocol</title>
      <p id="d1e557">In order to investigate the impact of simulating variable rooting strategies
and root growth, we employ three model versions of LPJmL in this study: (1) LPJmL4.0, (2) LPJmL4.0-VR and (3) LPJmL4.0-VR-base. LPJmL4.0-VR-base has the
same settings as LPJmL4.0-VR except variable rooting strategies, i.e. using
the two rooting strategy parameterizations of LPJmL4.0 (Appendix A, Sect. A1.3)
for the respective 10 sub-PFTs of the tropical broadleaved evergreen PFT and
the tropical broadleaved deciduous PFT. We regard LPJmL4.0-VR-base as the
baseline model of this study because comparisons to LPJmL4.0-VR enable the
investigation of differences caused by the presence or absence of variable tree
rooting strategies.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4095?><p id="d1e560">Each simulation was initialized with 5000 simulation years of spin-up from
bare ground without land use by periodically cycling the first 30 years of
the respective climate data set (1901–1930 for WATCH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>WFDEI, GSWP3, and CRU and
1948–1977 for GLDAS) and using a pre-industrial atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> level
of 278 ppm. The first spin-up ensures that carbon pools and local
distributions of PFTs and sub-PFTs are in equilibrium with the climate
(Schaphoff et al., 2018a). In a second spin-up
phase cycling the same 30 years of climate data, historical land use and
changing levels of atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration are introduced. The
second spin-up starts in the year 1700 and ends with the first year
available in each climate data set. Land use is updated annually as
described in    Schaphoff et al. (2018a). Before
the year 1840 a constant pre-industrial atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration
of 278 ppm is prescribed. After this year atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> increases
annually based on data of Tans and Keeling (2015) as
described in    Schaphoff et al. (2018a). After
the second spin-up, transient simulations start with the first year
available in each climate data set and end in 2010. Land use and atmospheric
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are consistently updated annually while continuing to follow the same
data sets as used in the second spin-up.</p>
      <p id="d1e616">At the beginning of the first spin-up, all sub-PFTs in LPJmL4.0-VR and
LPJmL4.0-VR-base have the same chance to establish; i.e. tree rooting
strategies are uniformly distributed. During the spin-up simulations, local
environmental filtering and competition in connection with PFT-dominance-dependent establishment rates (Sect. 2.2 and Appendix A, Sect. A1.6)
determine which tree rooting strategies are best suited and which are
outcompeted. Therefore, the transient simulations already start with
distinct distributions of tree rooting strategies.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Model validation</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS1">
  <label>2.5.1</label><title>Validation data</title>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Regional biomass pattern</title>
      <p id="d1e641">For evaluation of simulated regional patterns of AGB we compare the results
of the three LPJmL model versions used in this study to two remote-sensing-based
biomass maps
(Avitabile
et al., 2016; Saatchi et al., 2011) which were regridded to the spatial
resolution of the LPJmL models. Data of
Avitabile et al. (2016) were regridded using the software R  (R Core Team, 2019)
with the package raster    (Hijmans and van Etten, 2016). We used the
aggregate function to calculate the average value of all data entries of
Avitabile et al. (2016) falling into the coarser 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid of LPJmL.
Regridded data of Saatchi et al. (2011) were taken from
Carvalhais et al. (2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Local-scale evapotranspiration and productivity</title>
      <p id="d1e659">To evaluate simulated local ET and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of the three
LPJmL versions used in this study, we compare FLUXNET eddy covariance
measurements of ET at seven sites and NEE at three sites across the study region
(Bonal et al., 2008;
Saleska et al., 2013; Table A3) to simulated rates of local ET and NEE.
We used only three sites for NEE comparisons because only those sites provided
continuous data covering more than 2 years. FLUXNET data were downloaded from
<uri>https://fluxnet.fluxdata.org</uri>  (under <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.18140/FLX/1440032</ext-link> and <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440165" ext-link-type="DOI">10.18140/FLX/1440165</ext-link>) on
10 October 2017 and from <uri>https://daac.ornl.gov/LBA/guides/CD32_Brazil_Flux_Network.html</uri> on 6 November 2019.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSSx3" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Continental-scale gridded evapotranspiration products and selection of regions</title>
      <p id="d1e680">To evaluate the simulated ET over large regions and during a long period
(1981–2010), we use three global gridded data sets: Global Land Data
Assimilation System version 2   (Rodell et al., 2004),
ERA-Interim/Land (ERAI-L;     Balsamo
et al., 2015) and Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model v3.2 (GLEAM;
Miralles
et al., 2011; Martens et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e683">GLDAS and ERAI-L are reanalysis products, meaning that they are land surface
models forced with meteorological data that have been corrected with
observations to give better estimates of land surface variables. The
selection of these two products is based on the study of
Sörensson and Ruscica (2018), who found these models
perform better over South America than other reanalysis and
satellite-based ET products. GLDAS uses the land surface model Noah
(Ek et al., 2003) forced by Princeton
meteorological data set version 2.2
(Sheffield et al., 2006). The
soil depth of Noah is 2 m, and the model uses four soil layers and vegetation
data from the University of Maryland (<uri>https://geog.umd.edu/feature/global-land-cover-facility-(glcf)</uri>, last access: 30 June 2021). ERAI-L uses the land surface model
HTESSEL (Hydrology-Tiled ECMWF Scheme for Surface Exchanges over Land;
Balsamo et al., 2009) forced by ERA-Interim
atmospheric data with a GPCP-based correction (Adler et al., 2003) of monthly precipitation. The
soil depth of ERAI-L is 2.89 m; the model uses four soil layers and
vegetation data from ECOCLIMAP         (Masson
et al., 2003).</p>
      <p id="d1e689">GLEAM uses the Priestley–Taylor equation to estimate the potential ET and a
set of algorithms with meteorological and vegetation satellite data as input
to calculate the actual ET. The version used here, GLEAMv3.2a
(Martens et al., 2017;
downloaded from <uri>https://www.gleam.eu/#downloads</uri>, last access: 15 June 2019), uses
precipitation input from MSWEP v1.0
(Beck
et al., 2017), vegetation cover from the MODIS product MOD44B and the remotely
sensed vegetation optical index from CCI LPRM
(Liu et al., 2013) and
assimilates soil moisture from both remote sensing (ESA CCI SM v2.3;
Liu et al.,
2012) and land reanalysis (GLDAS Noah;    Rodell et al., 2004). The
original spatio-temporal resolution of GLDAS and GLEAM is
0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, while for ERAI-L it is
0.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Monthly time series were
calculated from daily values for the three data sets. Hereafter, we use the
short names GLDAS, ERAI-L and GLEAM for the described reference data sets.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4096?><p id="d1e746">For the temporal analysis of ET we used five climatological regions across
the study area: Northern South America (NSA), Equatorial Amazon West (EQ W), Equatorial Amazon East (EQ E), Southern Amazon (SAMz), and the South American
Monsoon System (SAMS) region (see Fig. 3f). These regions result from a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-means clustering analysis of the annual cycles of the main drivers of ET:
precipitation and surface net radiation (for details see
Sörensson and Ruscica, 2018). Additionally we divided
the large EQ region used by    Sörensson and Ruscica
(2018) into two smaller regions (EQ W and EQ E) at 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, since this
is the approximate division between regimes that have a maximum
cumulative water deficit (MCWD; Sect. 2.5.3) of around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>200 mm a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" 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>
(EQ W) and of around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>500 mm a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" 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> (EQ E).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSSx4" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Spatial distribution of vegetation types</title>
      <p id="d1e811">To evaluate the simulated regional distribution of simulated biome types of
the three LPJmL versions, we compare our results to satellite-derived vegetation
composition maps from ESA Land Cover CCI V2.0.7
(Li
et al., 2018), which were reclassified to the PFTs of LPJmL from
Forkel et al. (2014). In this data set
PFT dominance is indicated by foliage projected cover (FPC) which is also a
standard output variable of the three LPJmL model versions, allowing a direct
comparison to model results.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSSx5" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Spatial pattern of rooting depth</title>
      <p id="d1e820">We compare regional patterns of mean rooting depth simulated with
LPJmL4.0-VR to a map showing the maximum depth of root water uptake
(Fan et al., 2017), which was regridded
to the 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial resolution of LPJmL4.0-VR.
This product was inversely modelled by taking the dynamically interacting
variables of soil water supply and plant water demand into account. In
Fan et al. (2017) supply was based
on climate, soil properties, topography, and demand of plant transpiration
deduced from remotely sensed reanalysis of atmospheric water fluxes and leaf
area index (LAI) data.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS2">
  <label>2.5.2</label><title>Validation metrics</title>
      <p id="d1e856">All statistical evaluations of model results were based on (1) Pearson
correlation and (2) normalized mean square error (NME;
Kelley et al., 2013). NME is
calculated as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M40" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NME</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the simulated value and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the reference value in the grid
cell or time step <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean reference value. NME takes the
value 0 at perfect agreement and 1 when the model performs as well as the
reference mean, and values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicate complete disagreement.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSSx6" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Maximum cumulative water deficit as indicator of seasonal water stress</title>
      <p id="d1e989">To analyse and explain the geographical pattern of rooting depth, ET and
productivity, we use the maximum cumulative water deficit (MCWD) as an
independent indicator of potential seasonal water demand of vegetation. The MCWD
is a widely used indicator for seasonal water stress of tropical and
sub-tropical forests in South America
(Aragão
et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2011; Malhi et al., 2009). The MCWD captures the
seasonal difference in ET and precipitation in a cumulative way and
therefore comprises dry-season strength and duration. Here we calculate the MCWD
on a monthly basis. Therefore, we first calculate the cumulative water
deficit CWD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of each month <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M48" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CWD</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CWD</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PET</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where PET is the potential monthly ET and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the monthly sum of
precipitation. The CWD is constrained to values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and is set to 0
at the end of each hydrological year, here the last day of September, as in
Lewis et al. (2011). We use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from
climate input used for model forcing (Sect. 2.3.1) and PET as it is
simulated by LPJmL4.0   (Schaphoff et al., 2018a),
which is only dependent on net surface radiation and air temperature,
therefore remaining an explanatory variable independent of vegetation
dynamics. We chose this PET instead of using the commonly used constant ET
of 100 mm per month to calculate the CWD
(Aragão
et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2011; Malhi et al., 2009) because, in this way,
the CWD better corresponds to the actual climatological conditions in the
different LPJmL model versions used in this study (Sect. 2.4). The MCWD is then
calculated as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M52" display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MCWD</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">min⁡</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CWD</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">October</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CWD</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">September</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates the calendrical year.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Regional pattern of tree rooting strategies</title>
      <p id="d1e1160">In LPJmL4.0-VR the contribution of each tree rooting strategy to the overall
net primary productivity (NPP) appears highly dependent on local
environmental conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1163">Based on the information of how much NPP each sub-PFT contributes in each
grid cell, we derived maps of mean rooting depth over the whole study region
for the time span 2001–2010 for each climate input used in this study (Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows the mean of the actually achieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of each sub-PFT
(evergreen and deciduous combined) weighted by the respective relative NPP
contribution of each sub-PFT to total forest NPP (which we call <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>, hereafter). Therefore, the regional pattern of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> reflects
the effects of climate and soil depth. A general east-to-west gradient of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> over the Amazon region follows climatic gradients of
precipitation and the MCWD (Figs. B1–B2), while soil depth (Fig. A3) constrains
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> especially in the south-eastern Amazon. In general, areas
with higher mean annual rainfall and a weaker dry season show lower
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and vice versa (please also see Fig. B3 for a detailed
exemplary comparison of sub-PFT NPP for two grid cells with contrasting
climate conditions). This pattern holds true under all climate inputs, with
some minor local differences, and is in line with an inversely modelled
global gridded product of the maximum depth of root<?pagebreak page4097?> water uptake (MDRU in Fan et
al., 2017). Nevertheless, we find considerable absolute differences between
MDRU and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. B4), which can easily emerge from different
model settings and assumptions, e.g. related to differences in spatial model
resolution, simulated water percolation and underlying vegetation features.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1264">Regional NPP-weighted mean rooting depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>) of all
sub-PFTs (evergreen and deciduous PFTs combined) for 2001–2010 and different
climate inputs simulated with LPJmL4.0-VR. <bold>(a)</bold> CRU climate input. <bold>(b)</bold> GSWP3
climate input. <bold>(c)</bold> WATCH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>WFDEI climate input. <bold>(d)</bold> GLDAS climate input. The
colour-scale maximum is set to 10 m.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1310">Comparisons of continental-scale gridded ET products against
simulated ET within five regional climatological clusters <bold>(a–e)</bold> as defined in
Sect. 2.5.1. Shown is the mean annual cycle of 1981–2010 and the mean for
the whole cluster area. Corridors denote the minimum–maximum range between
either the Reference ET products (Sect. 2.5.1, “Validation data”) or the
model outputs under the different climate forcings used in this study. <bold>(f)</bold>
Geographical extent of climatological clusters (adapted from
Sörensson and Ruscica, 2018). Statistical measures of
the individual comparisons can be found in Table B3 (comparisons of corridor
means).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1325">Focussing on the climatological clusters (Sect. 2.5.1 and Fig. 3f) under CRU
climate input, the western Amazon (EQ W), with mean annual precipitation (MAP) of 2708 mm and a mean
MCWD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>163 mm, displays an overall mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.14 m and a
maximum of 5.47 m, despite considerably deeper soils present. In this
cluster Fan et al. (2017) find a mean and maximum MDRU of 1.26
and 17.95 m, respectively. In the northern, western and southern Amazon clusters (NSA, EQ E, SAMz) with lower MAP of 2299, 2190 and 2035 mm and considerably lower
MCWDs of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>488, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>438 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>497 mm, respectively, mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> increases
to 2.32, 3.20 and 2.68 m, respectively (mean MDRU of 1.85, 2.84 and 3.28 m).
Here, maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> values reach 11.97, 11.27 and 9.04 m, respectively (maximum MDRU of 14.28, 13.47 m and 16.57 m). In the monsoon-dominated
region (SAMS), displaying the lowest MAP of 1449 mm and MCWD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>649 mm, mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases to 1.37 m (mean MDRU 2.61 m). The maximum
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> of this region reaches 11.17 m located at the border with SAMz
(maximum MDRU 49.37 m).</p>
      <p id="d1e1434">The regional simulation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> also allows us to generalize which
tree rooting strategies occupy which climate space. Using the MCWD and MAP to
define a climate space, we find a clear adjustment of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. B5). A core region with deep-rooted forests (mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) is found where the MCWD ranges between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1300 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>400 and where MAP is at
least 1500 mm (see also maps of the MCWD and MAP in Figs. B1 and B2). This core
region is surrounded by a small band of medium-rooting-depth forests (mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–4 m). Rather shallow-rooted forests (mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) are found in increasingly drier climates where
MAP is less than 1000 mm and in more seasonal climates where the MCWD is below
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>500 mm. Shallow-rooted forests are also simulated in very wet conditions
where the MCWD is greater than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>300 mm and MAP is 1200 mm or higher.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Evapotranspiration and productivity</title>
      <p id="d1e1559">The climatological clusters within the Amazon region which undergo the
strongest dry season (EQ E and SAMz) show the largest differences between
simulations with variable (LPJmL4.0-VR) and constant
(LPJmL4.0-VR-base and LPJmL4.0) tree rooting strategies. In those clusters LPJmL4.0-VR shows a
significantly higher agreement with validation data (Fig. 3c, d and Table B3).
Agreement is largest for EQ E where NME and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> show values of
0.62 and 0.91, respectively, whereas constant rooting systems in the other
two models lead to values of NME <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table B3). In NSA and EQ W model differences are less
pronounced as annual precipitation deficits are lower and deep rooting
systems play a lesser role. Still, variable rooting systems lead to
noticeably higher agreement in NSA<?pagebreak page4098?> between January and April (Fig. 3a),
where monthly precipitation is lower compared to the rest of the year. In
the monsoon-dominated cluster SAMS outside the Amazon region (Fig. 3e),
model differences are least pronounced, since shallow-rooting forests
dominate this area in LPJmL4.0-VR (Fig. 2), which are very similar to the
forests with constant tree rooting strategies in the other two model versions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1598">Results of regional ET are in line with results of site-specific ET. On the
local level, the variable tree rooting strategies of LPJmL4.0-VR lead to a major
improvement in reproducing measured FLUXNET NEE and ET (Appendix B, Sect. B1.1
and Fig. B6–B7), increasing the confidence of regional modelling results.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Distribution of plant functional types</title>
      <p id="d1e1609">The simulated relative dominance of tropical tree PFTs across the study area
differs substantially between model versions (Fig. 4). In simulations with
LPJmL4.0, more than half of the grid cells show the evergreen and deciduous
PFTs to be equally dominant (Fig. 4g–h). Only in areas outside moist tropical
climate regions does the model tend towards dominance of the deciduous PFT,
whereas in the Amazon region, for example, the evergreen and deciduous PFTs co-exist
in almost equal abundance. These patterns strongly differ from
satellite-derived geographical PFT distributions (Fig. 4a–b) and therefore
yield in respective comparisons the highest NME values among all models
(Table B4). In contrast LPJmL4.0-VR and LPJmL4.0-VR-base show clear
dominance patterns of both tropical tree PFTs across the study area (Fig. 4c–f). Nevertheless, differences between LPJmL4.0-VR and LPJmL4.0-VR-base
are quite substantial. In LPJmL4.0-VR-base the tropical evergreen PFT
dominates the north-western Amazon region only, negligibly extending further
than the borders of climatological clusters NSA and EQ W combined. Beyond
these borders the tropical deciduous PFT dominates (Fig. 4e–f). In contrast,
in LPJmL4.0-VR (Fig. 4e–f) the evergreen tree PFT dominates the entire
Amazon region including EQ E and SAMz, and the deciduous PFT is pushed
towards drier and more seasonal climates (including parts of SAMS).
Therefore, LPJmL4.0-VR yields the lowest NME values in comparison to
satellite-derived PFT distributions (Table B4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1614">Foliage projective cover (FPC) of evergreen <bold>(a, c, e, g)</bold> and
deciduous <bold>(b, d, f, h)</bold> PFTs over the study region. <bold>(a–b)</bold> Satellite-derived
vegetation composition from ESA Land Cover CCI V2.0.7
(Li
et al., 2018) reclassified to the PFTs of LPJmL as in
Forkel et al. (2014). <bold>(b–c)</bold>
LPJmL4.0-VR. <bold>(d–e)</bold> LPJmL4.0-VR-base. <bold>(f–g)</bold> LPJmL4.0. All LPJmL model
versions were forced with CRU climate input. The FPC shown for all models
refers to 2001–2010. For statistical measures of individual comparisons
between model versions <bold>(c–h)</bold> and satellite-derived vegetation composition
<bold>(a–b)</bold>, see Table B4.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Climate and soil depth determine dominant tree rooting strategies</title>
      <p id="d1e1664">The geographical patterns of simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> are very similar under
four different climate input data sets (Fig. 2). This gives confidence in the
general robustness of our results and modelling approach as differences in
climate data do not lead to substantially different model behaviour. This is
further supported by similar regional rates of ET simulated under the
different climate data inputs (Fig. 3).</p>
      <p id="d1e1681">Simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 2) clearly follows climate gradients and soil
depth found in the study region (Figs. A3, B2, B3). Here, MAP and the MCWD can
serve as explanatory variables of simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. B5). These
findings are in line with the general ecological expectation and former
studies that seasonal water depletion of upper soil layers, as a combination
of annual precipitation and dry-season length and strength, is positively
correlated with the rooting depth of tropical evergreen trees
(Baker
et al., 2009; Ichii et al., 2007; Kleidon and Heimann, 1998, 1999). We also
find lower thresholds for MAP and the MCWD where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> strongly
decreases again (Fig. B5), which can be explained by different<?pagebreak page4099?> mechanisms
leading to a regime shift from the evergreen to the deciduous tree PFT as
discussed below (see Sect. 4.2).</p>
      <p id="d1e1726">To evaluate our model results against empirical data, we checked the data
availability on maximum rooting depth across South America in the TRY
database (Kattge et al., 2020; data downloaded September 2019). As is also shown in Fan et al. (2017), we
found the number of sites within the TRY database where maximum rooting
depth has been measured in South America to be very low. Moreover, the
number of data entries per site appeared very small, where 33 TRY sites
falling within our study area showed a mean of nine and a median of six data
entries, while 15 sites showed five or fewer data entries. Therefore, we
decided not to include site-specific comparisons of rooting depth as it is
not clear how representative these measurements are for the local forest
communities. More research is necessary to increase the number of
observation sites and improve the empirical basis of field-based rooting
depth to allow for site-specific model evaluation. Nevertheless, as shown in
Fan et al. (2017) measured, site-specific
maximum rooting depth across the Amazon region follows the known
climatic gradient as expected (Figs. B1, B2). The same holds true for the inversely
modelled MDRU of    Fan et al. (2017; shown
in Fig. B4), which gives confidence in our results.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Rooting depth influences the distribution, dominance and biomass of
tropical plant functional types</title>
      <p id="d1e1737">In all three model versions used in this study, the same land use is applied
(Sect. 2.4), which shapes the geographical extent and maximum dominance of
natural vegetation in our results. This is why FPC maps of all model
versions show the shape of the Amazon region as a distinct pattern (Fig. 4),
even though it is less visible for LPJmL4.0-VR-base and one has to consider
both tropical tree PFTs at the same time (Fig. 4e–f). Within the Amazon
region, LPJmL4.0 simulates similar dominance of the evergreen and
deciduous PFT (Fig. 4g–h) which contradicts evaluation data (Fig. 4a–b) and
indicates similar performance of the two PFTs or missing mechanisms
rewarding better performance over time. We here find that introducing a
performance-dependent tree establishment rate (Sect. 2.2 and Appendix A,
Sect. A1.6) clearly resolves this issue. This feature produces clear
dominance patterns of both PFTs in LPJmL4.0-VR and LPJmL4.0-VR-base.
Apparently, by rewarding better performance, variable tree rooting
strategies (LPJmL4.0-VR) become necessary to reproduce the dominance of the
evergreen PFT throughout the Amazon region (Fig. 4e–f). To remain superior
in drier and more seasonal environments in the south to south-eastern Amazon
region, the evergreen PFT needs to access deep water by adjusting its rooting
depth (Fig. 2). Clearly, this adjustment of rooting depth is only possible
within a certain climatic envelope. Below certain thresholds of MAP (around
1000 mm) and the MCWD (around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>500 mm), mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases again (Fig. B5), which coincides with a transition from the evergreen to the deciduous
PFT. Those thresholds are similar to thresholds between evergreen forests
and savanna found by, for example, Malhi
et al. (2009) at annual precipitation of 1500 mm and at an MCWD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>300 mm. The
substantially lower MCWD value found in our study can be explained by the
differences in calculating the CWD. While
Malhi et al. (2009) assume a constant
rate of ET per month of 100 mm, we use the monthly variable PET (Sect. 2.5.3). Since PET is often significantly higher than 100 mm, our monthly CWD
and therefore MCWD values are lower.</p>
      <p id="d1e1768">Similarly to   Malhi et al. (2009),
Staver et al. (2011) find
that the climatic thresholds for evergreen forest are not very distinct and
savanna can simultaneously be found in a climatic range around the mean
threshold. The authors ascribe this forest–savanna bi-stability to
climate–fire–vegetation feedbacks. Many recent studies investigating
potential forest–savanna bi-stability and tipping points of forests in and
around the Amazon region rely solely on such climatic ranges of tropical
biomes
(Hirota
et al., 2011; Wuyts et al., 2017; Zemp et al., 2017; Staal et al., 2018; Ciemer
et al., 2019). The results of LPJmL4.0-VR show that knowledge on local tree root
adaptations is another important explanatory variable of vegetation cover,
reducing the uncertainty and width of anticipated climatic ranges where
vegetation cover could be bi-stable. These findings are supported by a
recent study that finds rooting depth more crucial than fire dynamics for
explaining PFT dominance in South America
(Langan et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e1771">Whether the transition between the evergreen and deciduous tree PFT for the
thresholds of MAP and the MCWD we find with LPJmL4.0-VR is mainly caused by (a)
environmental filtering (including vegetation–fire feedbacks) of deep tree
rooting strategies, (b) their competitive exclusion by shallow-rooted
deciduous sub-PFTs together with the tropical herbaceous PFT (Fig. B8) or (c) most probably a combination of both is yet to be determined. Given that we
used the most simplistic fire module of LPJmL
(Glob-FIRM; Thonicke et al., 2001) and
current land-use input to allow model evaluation against remotely sensed
data in this study, investigating the natural mechanisms of tropical PFT
shifts should be the focus of further studies.</p>
      <p id="d1e1774">Regardless of the mechanisms that eventually lead to a PFT shift, we can
state that neither costs for deep-root investment nor a heterogeneous
pattern of soil depth across the study region disproves that locally adapted
tree rooting depth is key for explaining the current geographical distribution
of tropical evergreen forests in South America. Given the large differences
between LPJmL4.0-VR and LPJmL4.0-VR-base (Fig. 4), it is clear that in
roughly half of the Amazon region the carbon balance of the evergreen PFT is
superior to the deciduous PFT only when investing substantial amounts of
carbon in deeper roots, i.e. below-ground biomass (Fig. B9). On the one
hand this investment has a direct negative effect on<?pagebreak page4100?> productivity, because
during growth the allocation of assimilated carbon shifts towards respiring
below-ground biomass while investments in productive AGB (Fig. B10) need
to be reduced. On the other hand, drier and more seasonal environments show
less cloud cover during the dry season
(Nemani et al., 2003), enhancing
photosynthesis at this time of the year which increases productivity as long
as water access is assured
(Costa et al.,
2010; Wu et al., 2016). The trade-off between AGB and BGB investment most
probably leads to a more homogenous AGB pattern across the Amazon region
with similar values over a wide climatic range (compare EQ E and SAMz in
Fig. B10c–e).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Diverse tree rooting strategies improve simulated evapotranspiration and
productivity</title>
      <p id="d1e1785">LPJmL4.0-VR simulates rates of local ET and NEE which reasonably match
respective measurements at different FLUXNET sites throughout the Amazon
region (Figs. B6–B7), even though we run the model with regionally gridded
instead of locally measured climate data. While potentially lacking
information on local short-term weather events, gridded climate input still
seems to be sufficient to capture broad seasonal signals for our comparisons
on a monthly basis. This also increases the confidence in our results on a
regional scale.</p>
      <p id="d1e1788">Across large parts of the Amazon region, variable tree rooting strategies
decrease the intra-annual variability in ET and maintain high rates of NEE
and ET during the dry season in accordance with the intra-annual trends
suggested by evaluation data (Figs. 3, B6, B7). More than that, simulated rates
of ET and productivity can peak during the dry season, e.g. in EQ E, which
has been explained by increased solar radiation during this time of the year
(Nemani et al., 2003; da Rocha et al., 2004). Especially in EQ E and SAMz,
at least parts of the forest area must have access to sufficient water in
the model and in reality
(Costa et al.,
2010; Wu et al., 2016). Given that LPJmL4.0-VR and LPJmL4.0-VR-base are
essentially identical models with the same soil depth input and subsequent
hydrology over the whole soil column, their differences in simulated ET and
NEE must emerge from their only difference, which is the number of simulated
tree rooting strategies. Therefore, local root adaptations in LPJm4.0-VR can
be regarded as a buffer against seasonal precipitation deficits by usage of
deep water (exemplarily shown in large detail for the FLUXNET Site STM_K67 in
Fig. B11).</p>
      <p id="d1e1791">We can here quantify this water access for the first time on the basis of
carbon investment and return and limited by spatial heterogeneous soil
depth. Without limits to rooting depth in the form of local soil depth (e.g.
by applying a universal soil depth of 20 m) and below-ground carbon
investment, seasonally dry climatological clusters would potentially shift
towards deeper-rooted sub-PFT dominance, consequently leading to an
overestimation of ET rates. Therefore, we argue that both factors are of
great importance in explaining regional rates of ET. This also means that
forests in the same climatological cluster contribute very differently to
the overall ET and therefore to moisture recycling across South America. We
can here mechanistically explain this coherence as we show for the first
time on the regional scale how PFTs with variable tree rooting strategies
adjust to local environmental conditions and in return lead to simulated
rates of ET very close to validation data (Figs. 3, B6). The heterogeneous
picture of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> we find (Fig. 2) might provide a direct guideline for
where to put emphasis on forest conservation to maintain continental-scale
moisture recycling, as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> directly scales with rates of ET.</p>
      <p id="d1e1822">Being able to mechanistically reproduce and explain the broad-scale
stabilization of water fluxes into the atmosphere has wide implications for
DGVM frameworks and simulation of ET as moisture input to the
atmosphere in Earth system models (ESMs). Our approach can help to better
quantify the role of forests for local- to continental-scale moisture
recycling and to project the fate of forests under future climate and
land-use change. The approach presented here is easily applicable for a wide
range of DGVMs and ESMs which simulate fine-root distribution in a similar
way to in the LPJmL model family (based on   Jackson et al., 1996). A
first and easy-to-implement step for other models could be to prescribe the
relative fine-root distribution in a spatially explicit way in accordance with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> values presented in this study.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e1849">In this paper we reconfirm the hypotheses that climate and soil depth
determine dominant tree rooting strategies (hypothesis I) and tree rooting
depth is key for explaining the distribution and dominance (hypothesis II) as
well as evapotranspiration and productivity rates (hypothesis III) of tropical evergreen
forests in South America, even when the competition of tree
rooting strategies and carbon investment in gradually growing roots are
considered. In fact our findings suggest that roughly half of the evergreen
forests in the Amazon region depend on investments in rooting systems
which go deeper than the standard average PFT parameterization based on the
literature allows for. Those deep root systems can be regarded as a buffer
against seasonal precipitation deficits by usage of deep water, and they keep
rates of ET and productivity at high levels throughout the year.</p>
      <p id="d1e1852">A major advance of the new sub-model version LPJmL4.0-VR is that simulations
start with uniform input distributions of tree rooting strategies in each
location which develop into a distribution of abundance driven by local
environmental filtering and competition. Therefore, these distributions are
not a pre-selected input but an emergent simulation output.</p>
      <p id="d1e1855">The new model features will enable the introduction of local tree rooting depth as a key
explanatory variable into<?pagebreak page4101?> future studies dealing with bi-stability of
potential forest cover in tropical regions. Generally, we are convinced that
our approach is of high importance to all modelling frameworks of DGVMs and
Earth system models (ESMs) aiming at quantifying continental-scale moisture
recycling, forest tipping points and resilience. So far, the importance of
local-scale tree root adaptations for regional-scale ecosystem functions
underlines the need to protect this below-ground functional diversity and not
only in the scope of future global change.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

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

<?pagebreak page4102?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>A1</label><title>A new tree rooting scheme for LPJmL4.0</title>
      <p id="d1e1877">In this section we describe the new basic scheme for soil layer
partitioning, the new tree rooting scheme, the simulation of below-ground
carbon investment and how different tree rooting strategies (implemented in
the new scheme) compete.</p>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>A1.1</label><title>Scheme for soil layer partitioning</title>
      <p id="d1e1887">LPJmL4.0 employs a globally universal soil depth of 3 m. For LPJmL4.0-VR we
extended the general maximum soil depth to 20 m (but restrict it to local
soil depth information at the model's spatial resolution; Sect. 2.3.2).
We applied the same basic scheme for soil layer partitioning from LPJmL4.0
(Schaphoff et al., 2018a) in order to keep
model differences small (Table A1). We chose a maximum soil depth of 20 m to
considerably increase the maximum soil depth compared to the constant 3 m in
LPJmL4.0 while keeping the increment of computational demand connected to
adding more soil layers within an acceptable range. As with LPJmL4.0
(Schaphoff et al., 2018a), we use grid-cell-specific soil texture information which is applied to the whole soil column.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>A1.2</label><title>Water balance, infiltration and percolation</title>
      <p id="d1e1898">We here provide a very brief description of LPJmL's water balance and soil
hydrology. A detailed description can be found in
Schaphoff et al. (2018a).</p>
      <p id="d1e1901">The hydraulic conductivity and water-holding capacity (water content at
permanent wilting point, at field capacity, and at saturation) for each grid
cell are derived from information on soil texture from the Harmonized World
Soil Database (HWSD) version 1   (Nachtergaele et al.,
2009), and relationships between texture and hydraulic properties are derived from
Cosby et al. (1984). Each soil layer's (Appendix A, Sect. A1.1) water content can be altered by infiltrating rainfall and percolation.
The soil water content of the first soil layer determines the infiltration
rate of rain and irrigation water. The excess water that does not infiltrate
generates surface water runoff. Water percolation through the soil layers is
calculated by the storage routine technique   (Arnold et al.,
1990) as used in regional hydrological models such as SWIM
(Krysanova et al., 1998). Water percolation thus depends on the
hydraulic conductivity of each soil layer and the soil water content between
field capacity and saturation at the beginning and the end of the day for
all soil layers. Similarly to water infiltration into the first soil layer,
percolation in each soil layer is limited by the soil moisture of the
following lower layer. Excess water over the saturation levels forms lateral
runoff in each layer and contributes to subsurface runoff. Surface and
subsurface runoff accumulate to form river discharge. The routines for water
balance, infiltration and percolation were not changed for LPJmL4.0-VR. Thus
the routines now apply for soil columns of up to a 20 m depth (Appendix A,
Sect. A1.1).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Table A1</label><caption><p id="d1e1907">Soil layer partitioning scheme used in LPJmL4.0-VR. The first
metre of the soil column is split into three soil layers, and after 1 m of soil
depth each following soil layer is assigned a thickness of 1 m as in
LPJmL4.0. Whereas LPJmL4.0's last soil layer reaches 3 m, LPJmL4.0-VR's last
soil layer reaches 20 m.</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="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soil layer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Soil layer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Soil layer</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">number</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">boundary (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">thickness (m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">…</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">…</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">…</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e2027">Relative amount of fine roots in each soil layer for different
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values in LPJmL4.0 and LPJmL4.0-VR. In the legend, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>old1 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>old2 correspond to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values of the two tropical tree PFTs
(deciduous and evergreen) simulated in LPJmL4.0. The corresponding graphs
lie on top of each other due to marginal differences in their <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>1–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>10 correspond to the 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values used in
LPJmL4.0-VR (Table A2) to create the 10 sub-PFTs of the tropical
evergreen and deciduous tree PFTs (Appendix A, Sect. A1.3). For LPJmL4.0-VR
the fine-root distribution at maximum rooting depth is shown. Please note,
the first three soil layers (as described in Appendix A, Sect. A1.1) in this
visualization are treated as one layer of 1 m thickness for reasons of visual
clarity.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><label>Table A2</label><caption><p id="d1e2096"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values assigned to the 10 sub-PFTs of each
tropical PFT (evergreen and deciduous) in LPJmL4.0-VR and the corresponding
maximum rooting depth reached by 95 % of the roots
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</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="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">sub-PFT number</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9418</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9851</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9925</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.995</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9963</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9971</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9976</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9981</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9986</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">16</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.9993</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>A1.3</label><title>Diversifying general tree rooting strategies</title>
      <?pagebreak page4103?><p id="d1e2300">In LPJmL4.0 the tree rooting strategy of a PFT is reflected by a certain
prescribed vertical distribution of fine roots throughout the soil column.
Each soil layer l is assigned a PFT-specific relative amount of fine roots,
rootdist<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>:
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>A1</label><mml:math id="M108" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rootdist</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rootdist</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rootdist</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the soil layer boundary depth in centimetres of each soil layer l and
rootdist(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the relative amount of fine roots between the forest floor and the
boundary of soil layer l. The function rootdist<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined following
Jackson et al. (1996):
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>A2</label><mml:math id="M112" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">roodist</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bottom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a constant parameter shaping the vertical distribution of
fine roots and therefore determining the tree rooting strategy and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bottom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum soil depth in centimetres. In LPJmL4.0 each PFT is
assigned a different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value reflecting the average tree rooting
strategy on this broad PFT scale   (Schaphoff et
al., 2018a).</p>
      <p id="d1e2459">To quantify the maximum rooting depth of PFTs that actually results from
this approach (Eqs. A1 and A2), we here calculate the depth at which the
cumulated fine-root biomass from the soil surface downwards is 95 %
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as follows:
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>A3</label><mml:math id="M117" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bottom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            In LPJmL4.0 the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values of tropical tree PFTs are set to 0.962 for
the tropical broadleaved evergreen tree and to 0.961 for the tropical
broadleaved deciduous tree following    Jackson et al. (1996).
According to Eq. A3 both PFTs have a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> smaller than
1 m. For LPJmL4.0-VR we extended this representation of tree rooting
strategies by splitting both tropical tree PFTs into 10 sub-PFTs and
assigning each with a different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value. These values were chosen to
cover a range of different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values between 0.5 and
18 m (Table A2). We chose 18 m as the largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
value in order to avoid that roots of the respective sub-PFT significantly
exceed the maximum soil depth of 20 m (see also Appendix A, Sect. 1.5). Figure A1 shows the new maximum distribution of fine roots throughout the soil
column for the different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values chosen (Table A2).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS4">
  <label>A1.4</label><title>Below-ground carbon investment</title>
      <p id="d1e2627">Tropical trees can avoid water stress under seasonally dry climates by
growing relatively deep roots
(Brum
et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2017), which is accompanied by increased below-ground
carbon investment. Thus, the need for deep water access creates a trade-off
between below-ground and above-ground carbon investment. Therefore, a new
carbon allocation scheme for LPJmL4.0-VR was necessary to account for this
trade-off in order to reproduce locally to regionally observed patterns and
distributions of tree rooting strategies instead of prescribing them. In
LPJmL4.0-VR we introduced two new carbon pools, namely root sapwood and root
heartwood. Like stem sapwood in LPJmL4.0, root sapwood in LPJmL4.0-VR
also needs to satisfy the assumptions of the pipe model
(Shinozaki et al., 1964; Waring et al., 1982). The
pipe model describes that, for a certain amount of leaf area, a certain
amount of water-conducting tissue must be available. In LPJmL4.0 the
cross-sectional area of stem sapwood needs to be proportional to the leaf
area LA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ind</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as follows:
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>A4</label><mml:math id="M125" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LA</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ind</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">la</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ind</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">la</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a constant describing the ratio of leaf area and
stem sapwood cross-sectional area (SA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ind</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). In LPJmL4.0-VR we also apply
the pipe model to root sapwood. The root sapwood cross-sectional area in the
first soil layer is equal to the stem sapwood cross-sectional area, as all water
must be transported through the root sapwood within this soil layer. In the
following soil layers downwards, the root sapwood cross-sectional area decreases
by the relative amount of fine roots in all soil layers above (Fig. 1). Root
sapwood is turned into root heartwood at an equal rate to stem sapwood being
turned into stem heartwood, i.e. 5 % per year as implemented in LPJmL4.0
(see   Schaphoff et al., 2018a).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A3}?><label>Table A3</label><caption><p id="d1e2703">Description of FLUXNET sites used for the evaluation of simulated
ET.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <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:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Site name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Short name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Country</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">LPJmL coordinate </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">latitude</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">longitude</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ecotone Bananal Island (BR-Ban)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TOC_BAN</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Brazil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50.25</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Manaus-ZF2 K34/BR-Ma2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAN_K34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Brazil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>60.25</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Santarem-Km67-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">STM_K67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Brazil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>54.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Primary Forest/BR-Sa1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Santarem-Km77-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">STM_K77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Brazil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>54.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pasture/BR-Sa2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Santarem-Km83-Logged Forest/BR-Sa3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">STM_K83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Brazil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>54.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Rond.-Rebio Jaru Ji</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RON_RJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Brazil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>61.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parana-Tower B/BR-Ji3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Guyaflux</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GF_GUY</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">French Guiana</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>52.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS5">
  <label>A1.5</label><title>Root growth</title>
      <p id="d1e3013">In LPJmL4.0   (Schaphoff et al., 2018a) no
vertical root growth is simulated; thus the relative distribution of fine
roots over the soil column is constant over space and time. It means that
PFTs starting from bare ground in a sapling stage display the same relative
distribution of fine roots throughout the soil column as a full-grown forest,
which contradicts the principles of dynamic root growth over a tree's
lifetime. Applied to LPJmL4.0-VR, the below-ground biomass of an initialized
deep-rooting-strategy sub-PFT would exceed its above-ground biomass (AGB) by
orders of magnitude when considering coarse roots. Consequently, deep
rooting strategies would always be disadvantageous, calling for modelling
gradual root growth in LPJmL4.0-VR. Unfortunately, little is known about how
roots of tropical trees grow over time, given the fact that this research
field is strongly time and resource demanding and at the same time the
variety of tree species, rooting strategies and environmental conditions is
large    (Jenik, 1978). A recent promising study by
Brum et<?pagebreak page4104?> al. (2019) was able to
capture the effective functional rooting depth (EFRD) of different size
classes of 12 dominant tree species in a seasonal Amazon forest where tree
roots grow considerably deep with maximum values reaching below 30 m. To our
knowledge this is the only study capturing the relation between the size of
tropical trees and their maximum rooting depth in a high spatial resolution
covering sufficient tree-height classes to derive a functional
relation between tree height and rooting depth. Following the findings of
Brum et al. (2019), we here
implemented a logistic root growth function, which calculates a general
maximum conceivable tree rooting depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depending on tree height:
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>A5</label><mml:math id="M142" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum soil depth in the model (20 m), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a dimensionless
constant defining the growth rate of the standard logistic growth function
(set to 0.02), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the average tree height of a PFT in metres and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
initial rooting depth of tree PFT saplings (set to 0.1 m; tree saplings in
LPJmL4.0-VR are initialized with a height of 0.45 m as in LPJmL4.0). The
distribution of fine-root biomass of each sub-PFT in the soil column is then
adjusted according to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at each time step, by restricting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bottom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
Eq. (A2). Every time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> crosses a specific soil layer boundary (Appendix A, Sect. A1.1), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bottom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is assigned the value of the next soil layer
boundary. Thus, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bottom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases in discrete steps. Consequently,
each tree rooting strategy allowed for in this study (Appendix A, Sect. A1.3)
shows a logistic growth of rooting depth which is dependent on the sub-PFT
height and which saturates towards its specific maximum rooting depth (Fig. A2). Therefore, limitations of above-ground sub-PFT growth due to
below-ground carbon investment of different tree rooting strategies
(Appendix A, Sect. A1.4) are equal in the sapling phase of all sub-PFTs
(starting from bare ground) and start to diverge with increasing sub-PFT
height. In the case that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exceeds the grid-cell-specific local soil depth (as
prescribed by the soil thickness input; see Sect. 2.3.2), all the
respective fine-root biomass exceeding this soil depth is transferred to the
last soil layer matching this soil depth (see also Fig. 1 right panel and
Supplementary Video 1 for a visualization of root growth available at
<uri>http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~borissa/LPJmL4_VR/Supplementary_Video_1.pptx</uri>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure A2</label><caption><p id="d1e3170">Relation between tree height and rooting depth in LPJmL4.0-VR.
Black line: implemented general growth function of rooting depth (Eq. A5).
Lines with colour scale from yellow to blue: growth functions of rooting
depth for each of the 10 sub-PFTs (Sect. 2.2.3). Here temporal rooting depth
is expressed as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and eventually reaches
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. A3). Solid red line: mean effective
functional rooting depth over tree height (EFRD) adapted from
Brum et al. (2019) using Eq. (A5).
Dashed red line: respective 75th-percentile EFRD over tree height adapted from
Brum et al. (2019). Please also
see Supplementary Video 1 for a visualization of root growth and development
of below-ground carbon pools over time available at
<uri>http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~borissa/LPJmL4_VR/Supplementary_Video_1.pptx</uri>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure A3</label><caption><p id="d1e3211">Soil/sediment thickness from Pelletier et al. (2016) regridded to the 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude–latitude
grid of LPJmL4.0-VR and restricted to a maximum of 20 m. Colour bar in decadic
logarithm.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?pagebreak page4105?><p id="d1e3246">The parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (A5) was chosen to preserve the slope of the 75th-percentile
function describing the relation between tree height and EFRD as found in
Brum et al. (2019). We could not
implement any of the original functions as suggested in
Brum et al. (2019) since they
deliver unrealistically low values of rooting depth (between 0 and 10 cm) for
trees <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 m, which results in a strong competitive disadvantage
against herbaceous PFTs in LPJmL4.0-VR. We decided for the slope of the
75th-percentile function to allow for root growth rates close to the maximum which
also allows for the largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values in this
study (Appendix A, Sect. 1.3) to be reached. Note that
Brum et al. (2019) originally
propose a relation between tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and EFRD. For
our purposes we related rooting depth to tree height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is
calculated from DBH in LPJmL4.0 according to  Huang et al. (1992):
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>A6</label><mml:math id="M162" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">allom</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DBH</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">allom</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">allom</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">allom</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are constants set to 40 and 0.67,
respectively   (Schaphoff et al., 2018a).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS6">
  <label>A1.6</label><title>Competition of rooting strategies</title>
      <p id="d1e3359">In each grid cell all sub-PFTs of the evergreen and deciduous tree PFTs
compete for light and water following LPJmL4.0's approach to simulate plant
competition. In LPJmL4.0, the number of new PFT saplings per unit area
(est<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PFT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in ind m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" 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> a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" 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>, where ind is individuals) which are established each year is
proportional to a maximum establishment rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and to the sum of
foliage projected cover (FPC; a relative number between 0 and 1) of all tree
PFTs present in a grid cell (FPC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). It declines in proportion to canopy
light attenuation when the sum of woody FPCs exceeds 0.95, thus simulating a
decline in establishment success with canopy closure   (Prentice
et al., 1993):
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E10" content-type="numbered"><label>A7</label><mml:math id="M170" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PFT</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FPC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><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:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FPC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of
established tree individuals (ind m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" 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> a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" 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>). It is important to
note that LPJmL4.0 does not simulate individual trees. As a common method of
DGVMs, tree saplings enter the average individual of a PFT as described in
Schaphoff et al. (2018a).</p>
      <p id="d1e3537">To allow for environmental filtering of tree rooting strategies which are
best adapted to local environmental conditions, we changed the standard tree
establishment scheme in LPJmL4.0-VR. Now, the establishment rates of
sub-PFTs (est<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sub</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PFT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) are additionally weighted by the
local dominance of each sub-PFT as follows:
              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E11" content-type="numbered"><label>A8</label><mml:math id="M175" display="block"><mml:mtable rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sub</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PFT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FPC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><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 mathvariant="normal">FPC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FPC</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sub</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PFT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FPC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">est</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TREE</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where FPC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sub</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PFT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the FPC of each sub-PFT. The
new term leads to a higher establishment rate for productive sub-PFTs
relative to their spatial dominance and vice versa, without changing the
overall establishment rate as set by Prentice et al. (1993).
This function has the effect that non-viable sub-PFTs are outcompeted over
time.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1.SSS7">
  <label>A1.7</label><title>Background mortality</title>
      <p id="d1e3696">In LPJmL4.0 background mortality is modelled by a fractional reduction in
PFT biomass, which depends on growth efficiency
(Schaphoff et al., 2018a). This annual rate of
mortality is limited by a constant maximum mortality rate of 3 % of tree
individuals per year which is applied to all tree PFTs. In other words, the
fastest total biomass loss of a tree PFT due to low growth efficiency can
happen within about 33 simulation years. In general, this maximum mortality
rate can be regarded as a global tuning parameter of biomass accumulation as
it caps the maximum biomass loss. Since many mechanisms influencing tree
mortality in the real world, e.g. hydraulic failure
(Johnson et al., 2018), are not yet
implemented in most DGVMs including LPJmL4.0
(Allen et al., 2015), the
parameterization of background tree mortality remains a challenging topic.
Under the current model status of LPJmL4.0, maximum mortality rates are a
necessary feature, while future model development must overcome the concept
of applying a maximum mortality rate by refining and implementing the most
important mechanisms that influence tree mortality.</p>
      <p id="d1e3699">In LPJmL4.0-VR tree PFTs can access water in soil depths which were formerly
inaccessible. This enhances the general growth efficiency of tree PFTs and
consequently decreases their overall background mortality. Since global
biomass patterns simulated with LPJmL4.0 were already in an acceptable range,
the maximum background mortality in LPJmL4.0-VR was calibrated and is now
increased to 7 % in order to counter-balance increased survival rates and
therefore biomass accumulation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</app>

<?pagebreak page4106?><app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{B}?><label>Appendix B</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>B1</label><title>Local evapotranspiration</title>
      <p id="d1e3719">Differences in intra-annual rates of ET and NEE between the three LPJmL model
versions are most pronounced at FLUXNET sites with high seasonality of
rainfall (Fig. B6b, e, g and Fig. B7b, e, g). Here, variable tree rooting
strategies (LPJmL4.0-VR) lead to a major improvement in reproducing measured
FLUXNET NEE and ET, also expressed in reduced NME and increased
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values (Tables B1, B2). Whereas constant tree rooting strategies
(LPJmL4.0-VR-base and LPJmL4.0) simulate decreasing ET and increasing NEE
during dry seasons at these sites, which is anticorrelated to FLUXNET
measurements, variable tree rooting strategies (LPJmL4.0-VR) follow the
intra-annual FLUXNET signals. The most pronounced improvements are found at STM_K67 and STM_K83, where the NME of ET and NEE drop below or close to 1 and
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values considerably increase compared to in the other
two model versions (Tables B1, B2). For STM_K67, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of NEE is
higher under LPJmL4.0 and LPJmL4.0-VR-base, but this refers to a significant
negative correlation.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S2.T4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B1}?><label>Table B1</label><caption><p id="d1e3758">Normalized mean error (NME), coefficient of determination
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> statistic piecewise calculated for
simulated ET of the different LPJmL model versions used in this study forced
with CRU climate input and FLUXNET data of ET at seven FLUXNET sites (in
accordance with Fig. B6).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <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:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Statistic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TOC_BAN</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">MAN_K34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">STM_K67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">STM_K77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">STM_K83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">RON_RJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">GF_GUY</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NME</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.57</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.36</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.43</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.08</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.01</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.01</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.075</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.041</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.575</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.005</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.067</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.585</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.221</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.517</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.277</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.068</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.672</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.221</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.514</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.274</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S2.T5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B2}?><label>Table B2</label><caption><p id="d1e4172">Normalized mean error (NME), coefficient of determination
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> statistic piecewise calculated for
simulated NEE of the different LPJmL model versions used in this study
forced with CRU climate input and FLUXNET data of NEE at three FLUXNET sites (in
accordance with Fig. B7).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Statistic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">STM_K67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">STM_K83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">GF_GUY</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NME</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.52</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.52</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.515</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.055</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.046</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.047</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.059</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S2.T6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B3}?><label>Table B3</label><caption><p id="d1e4440">Normalized mean error (NME), coefficient of determination
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> statistic piecewise calculated for the
simulated ET of the different LPJmL model versions used in this study and
continental-scale gridded ET products within five regional climatological
clusters. With respect to Fig. 3 comparisons are based on the monthly mean
of corridors shown, i.e. (1) the monthly mean of all outputs produced by one
LPJmL model version but forced with different climate inputs and (2) the
monthly mean of all continental-scale gridded ET data products.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><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">Statistic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NSA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">EQ W</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">EQ E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SAmz</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">SAMS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NME</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.06</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.13</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.143</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.135</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4754">At STM_K77 (Fig. B6f) local circumstances show the influence of variable
rooting strategies on ET in a different way. This former rainforest site was
converted to pasture before eddy covariance measurements began. This local
land use at STM_K77 is not representative of the respective 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
grid cell, and thus all three LPJmL model versions simulate mainly natural
vegetation instead of pasture. Therefore, the shallow rooting systems of
LPJmL4.0 and LPJmL4.0-VR-base show a better match to ET measurements at STM_K77. The site STM_K83 (Fig. B6g) is a selectively logged primary-forest site
which shares the same model grid cell as STM_K77 due to their geographical
proximity. Again, here only simulations with variable tree rooting
strategies (LPJmL4.0-VR) reproduce increased ET and decreased NEE during the
dry season. At sites with a weaker to no dry season (Fig. B6c, d, h)
differences between model versions become less pronounced, as water
availability is more stable throughout the year leading to less variable ET.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B1</label><caption><p id="d1e4768">Mean annual precipitation for 2001–2010 under CRU climate input.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B2</label><caption><p id="d1e4779">Mean annual MCWD for 2001–2010 under CRU climate input.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B3</label><caption><p id="d1e4791">Distributions of simulated mean monthly NPP for each
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> class for 2001–2010 under CRU climate input at
two FLUXNET sites. <bold>(a)</bold> Site MAN_K34 near the city of Manaus. <bold>(b)</bold> Site STM_K67
near the city of Santarem. For more site information, see Table A3 and Fig. B6a. At the FLUXNET site MAN_K34 <bold>(a)</bold>, which exhibits a mean annual
precipitation (MAP) of 2609 mm and a mean MCWD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>222 mm under CRU climate
input (2001–2010), the sub-PFT with a maximum rooting depth
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.5 m contributes most to overall NPP and the
whole distribution of NPP-weighted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> classes shows a
mean of 1.52 m. At the FLUXNET site STM_K67 <bold>(b)</bold>, which exhibits a lower MAP
of 2144 mm and a stronger dry season reflected in a mean MCWD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>465 mm,
the NPP-weighted distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shows a peak at 10 m
and a corresponding mean of 10.26 m. Since both sites have a soil depth of
20 m (according to the soil depth input; Sect. 2.3.2, Fig. A3) differences
in rooting strategy compositions must emerge from the climatic differences
in those sites. It is important to note that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values
(i.e. the bins on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes) do not necessarily reflect the true
rooting depth achieved by each sub-PFT but their maximum value. For reasons of
visual clarity, for this figure we kept the bins of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes as chosen in
Table A2.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B4</label><caption><p id="d1e4924">Comparison of simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> to product of maximum tree
root water uptake depth (MDRU). <bold>(a)</bold> Original
(Fan et al., 2017) MDRU regridded to
0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution of LPJmL4.0-VR. <bold>(b)</bold> Same as <bold>(a)</bold> but
adjusted to soil depth input used in this study (see Sect. 2.3.2), in cases where
values of Fan et al. (2017) exceeded
this soil depth. The colour-scale maximum for <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> is set to 10 m. <bold>(c)</bold> Difference between <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> simulated with LPJmL4.0-VR under
CRU climate forcing (Fig. 2a). <bold>(d)</bold> Difference between <bold>(b)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>
simulated with LPJmL4.0-VR under CRU climate forcing (Fig. 2a). Red/blue
colours denote higher/lower rooting depths in LPJmL4.0-VR.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>B2</label><title>Regional pattern of simulated above- and below-ground biomass</title>
      <p id="d1e5037">The simulated mean AGB pattern (2001–2010) of LPJmL4.0-VR (Fig. B10) shows
that variable tree rooting strategies lead to contiguous high biomass over
the Amazon region. Especially towards the borders of the south-eastern
Amazon region in the climatological clusters EQ E and SAMz, AGB values
appear rather homogenous in contrast to constant shallow tree rooting
strategies simulated in the other two model versions (Fig. B10d, e). In
connection with the significantly improved underlying vegetation composition
(Fig. 4e, f), it is clear that LPJmL4.0-VR is the only model version capable
of simulating high-AGB evergreen rainforests across the climatic gradient of
the Amazon region (Figs. B1, B2). This pattern is also found by one satellite-derived AGB product chosen for the evaluation of our model results
(Saatchi et al., 2011;
Fig B10b) which yields a corresponding NME close to 0 (Table B6). However,
compared to this product, low NME values are found for all model versions.
Surprisingly, in comparison to the other AGB validation product
(Avitabile et al.,
2016; Fig. B9a) LPJmL4.0-VR-base yields a smaller NME than LPJmL4.0-VR.
Considering the significantly less accurate underlying vegetation
composition of LPJmL4.0-VR-base as well as of LPJmL4.0 (Fig. 4), we regard such
comparisons as critical in this context.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4108?><p id="d1e5040">Comparisons of AGB pattern between all model versions of this study and
different biomass products are difficult, since only LPJmL4.0-VR shows a
reasonable geographical distribution of underlying PFTs across the study
area (Fig. 4, Table B4). Therefore, differences in biomass are not solely
the consequence of different productivities directly related to diversity in
tree rooting strategies but also the consequence of simulated PFT
dominance; i.e. they are rather an indirect effect of diversity in tree rooting
strategies. Concentrating on LPJmL4.0-VR only, the model matches
substantially better with the gridded biomass product of Saatchi et al. (2011; Table B5) since this product shows generally higher biomass values
across the Amazon region which are more similar to those of LPJmL4.0-VR. Therefore,
the higher NME found in the comparison to the biomass product of
Avitabile et al. (2016) is mainly caused by divergence of mean biomass values of the
evergreen PFT across the whole study area rather than by pattern divergence.
Thus, we argue that lowering overall biomass values in LPJmL4.0-VR would improve
its match with
Avitabile et al. (2016), which is a matter of adjusting overall maximum tree mortality rates
(Appendix A, Sect. A1.7).</p>
      <p id="d1e5043">Simulating diverse tree rooting strategies in connection with investment
in coarse-root structures in LPJmL4.0-VR allows for analysing carbon
investment in the newly implemented root carbon pools (Appendix A, Sects. A1.4 and A2.2). As expected, below-ground biomass (BGB; Fig. B9) follows
the simulated pattern <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 2). The highest BGB is found at
maximum values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and vice versa.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B5</label><caption><p id="d1e5077">Mean rooting depth depicted as mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> over classes
of MCWD and annual precipitation sums. Class step size for precipitation was
set to 250 mm, and class size for MCWD was set to 50 mm. Regions with high
amounts of annual rainfall and lower seasonality exclusively favour shallow-rooted forests (low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> increases with
decreasing MCWD (increasing seasonal drought stress) and decreasing sums of
annual precipitation. Below 1200 mm of annual rainfall or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1100 mm of MCWD,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> sharply decreases again. Note this figure does not consider
soil depth. The colour-scale maximum is set to 10 m.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S2.T7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B4}?><label>Table B4</label><caption><p id="d1e5152">Normalized mean error (NME) of FPC comparison piecewise calculated
between (1) the satellite-derived vegetation composition from ESA Land Cover
CCI V2.0.7
(Li
et al., 2018) reclassified to the PFTs of LPJmL as in Forkel et al. (2014)
and (2) all LPJmL model versions used in this study forced with CRU climate
data (in accordance with Fig. 4).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Statistic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">FPC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">FPC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">evergreen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">deciduous</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NME</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.01</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.76</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S2.T8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B5}?><label>Table B5</label><caption><p id="d1e5249">Normalized mean error (NME) of AGB comparison piecewise calculated
between (1) the satellite-derived AGB validation products and (2) all LPJmL
model versions used in this study forced with CRU climate data (in
accordance with Fig. B10).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Statistic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Model</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Avitabile et al. (2016)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Saatchi et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NME</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0-VR-base</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LPJmL4.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.14</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B6</label><caption><p id="d1e5332">Comparisons of monthly ET between different FLUXNET sites
(Reference; see also Sect. 2.5.1) and respective simulation output of
the different LPJmL model versions used in this study forced with CRU
climate. <bold>(a)</bold> Geographical location of different FLUXNET sites (see also Table A3). For statistical measures of the individual comparison, see Table B1.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F14" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B7</label><caption><p id="d1e5347">Comparisons of monthly NEE between different FLUXNET sites
(Reference; see also Sect. 2.5.1) and respective simulation output of
the different LPJmL model versions used in this study forced with CRU
climate. <bold>(a)</bold> Geographical location of different FLUXNET sites (see also Table A3). For statistical measures of the individual comparison, see Table B2.
Note that due to data scarcity only three FLUXNET sites are shown. Plots of all sites
are shown in Fig. B12. We kept panel labelling as in Fig. B6 to ensure easy
comparability.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F15"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B8</label><caption><p id="d1e5361">Foliage projected cover (FPC) of the tropical herbaceous PFT over
the study region. <bold>(a)</bold> Satellite-derived vegetation composition from ESA Land
Cover CCI V2.0.7
(Li
et al., 2018) reclassified to the PFTs of LPJmL as in
Forkel et al. (2014). <bold>(b)</bold>
LPJmL4.0-VR. <bold>(c)</bold> LPJmL4.0-VR-base. <bold>(d)</bold> LPJmL4.0. All LPJmL model versions were
forced with CRU climate input. The FPC shown for all models refers to
2001–2010.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5382">It is important to note that LPJmL4.0-VR appears to underestimate BGB
compared to empirical findings in the Amazon region. While LPJmL4.0-VR shows
BGB making up a range of 3.6 %–16.2 % of total biomass across the Amazon
region, different site-specific empirical studies have found mean values at the
upper end or significantly exceeding this range
(Fearnside, 2016). The most plausible explanation for
underestimating BGB is that LPJmL4.0-VR does not account for root structures
needed for tree statics. Acknowledging<?pagebreak page4109?> tree statics would increase below-ground carbon investment and therefore BGB. Nevertheless, below-ground
carbon investment for tree statics would apply for all sub-PFTs
simultaneously and would therefore most likely not significantly change
competition dynamics and the resulting distributions of tree rooting strategies
found in this study.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F16"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B9</label><caption><p id="d1e5387">Mean sum (2001–2010) of below-ground biomass (BGB; sum of tree
coarse and fine roots) of evergreen and deciduous tree PFTs simulated with
LPJmL4.0-VR under CRU climate forcing.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F17"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B10</label><caption><p id="d1e5399">Comparison of simulated AGB and satellite-derived AGB validation
products regridded to the spatial resolution of LPJmL models. <bold>(a)</bold> Biomass
validation product from
Avitabile et al. (2016). <bold>(b)</bold> AGB validation product from
Saatchi et
al. (2011). <bold>(c–e)</bold> Mean AGB simulated for the time span 2001–2010 with <bold>(c)</bold>
LPJmL4.0-VR, <bold>(d)</bold> LPJmL4.0-VR-base and <bold>(e)</bold> LPJmL4.0. For statistical measures
of individual comparisons between model versions <bold>(c–e)</bold> and satellite-derived
AGB evaluation products <bold>(a–b)</bold>, see Table B5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f17.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F18" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B11</label><caption><p id="d1e5435">Difference in soil water reaction to seasonal precipitation
between LPJmL4.0-VR-base and LPJmL4.0-VR at FLUXNET site STM_KM67. <bold>(a)</bold> Mean
monthly precipitation input from CRU for 2001–2010. <bold>(b)</bold> Difference in monthly
relative soil water content between LPJmL4.0-VR-base and LPJmL4.0-VR forced
with CRU climate for 2001–2010. The underlying model output variable “soil
water content” of each model version is a number between 0 and 1 depicting
the relative water saturation of the soil. Blue colours denote lower soil
water content in LPJmL4.0-VR, and red colours denote a lower soil water content in
LPJmL4.0-VR-base.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f18.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S2.F19" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{B12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure B12</label><caption><p id="d1e5452">Comparisons of monthly NEE between different FLUXNET sites
(Reference; see also Sect. 2.5.1) and respective simulation output of
the different LPJmL model versions used in this study forced with CRU
climate. <bold>(a)</bold> Geographical location of different FLUXNET sites (see also Table
A2).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/4091/2021/bg-18-4091-2021-f19.png"/>

        </fig>

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

      <p id="d1e5471">The model code of LPJmL4.0-VR can be found under
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709250" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4709250</ext-link> and should be cited as
Sakschewski et al. (2021a). The model code of standard
LPJmL4.0 can be found under    Schaphoff et al. (2018b).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e5480">All output data of LPJmL4.0-VR, LPJmL4.0-VR-base and LPJmL4.0 analysed in
this study can be found under <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709166" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4709166</ext-link> and
should be cited as   Sakschewski et al. (2021b). All data sources used in this study to run and validate the model versions of LPJmL4.0 are referenced in the “Materials and methods” section (Sect. 2.3–2.5).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="videosupplement"><title>Video supplement</title>

      <p id="d1e5489">Animation of root growth in LPJmL4.0-VR is in accordance with Fig. 1. For description of panels please see description of Fig. 1. For reasons of visual clarity growth of tree stem and crown do not follow the true allometric functions of LPJmL4.0-VR. The video supplement is available at <uri>http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~borissa/LPJmL4_VR/Supplementary_Video_1.pptx</uri>.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5498">All authors helped in conceptualizing the model. BS and WvB developed the
model code. BS, WvB, MD, AS, RR, FL, MB, SB, MH, RO and KT conceived the
simulation experiments, and BS carried them out. BS, MD, AS, RR and JH
analysed model output data. BS prepared the manuscript with contributions
from all co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5504">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5510">Boris Sakschewski and Kirsten Thonicke acknowledge funding from the BMBF- and Belmont-Forum-funded project “CLIMAX: Climate Services Through Knowledge Co-Production: A Euro-South American Initiative for Strengthening Societal Adaptation Response to Extreme Events”, FKZ 01LP1610A. Markus Drüke is funded by the DFG–FAPESP within the IRTG 1740/TRP 2015/50122-0. Marina Hirota is supported by a grant from Instituto Serrapilheira – Serra 1709-18983. Anna Amelia Sörensson and Romina Ruscica acknowledge support from PICT-2018-02511 (ANPCyT, Argentina). Maik Billing is funded by the  European  Union's  Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 641762 (ECOPOTENTIAL). This work used eddy covariance data acquired and shared by the FLUXNET community, including the following networks: AmeriFlux, AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada, GreenGrass, ICOS, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux-TERN, TCOS-Siberia and USCCC. The ERA-Interim reanalysis data are provided by ECMWF and processed by LSCE. The FLUXNET eddy covariance data processing and harmonization was carried out by the European Fluxes Database Cluster, Ameri- Flux Management Project and Fluxdata project of FLUXNET, with the support of CDIAC and the ICOS Ecosystem Thematic Centre and the OzFlux, ChinaFlux and AsiaFlux offices.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5515">This research has been supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (grant no. FKZ 01LP1610A), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant no. IRTG 1740/TRP 2015/50122-0), the Instituto Serrapilheira – Serra (grant no. 1709-18983),
the Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la Innovación (grant no. PICT-2018-02511) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant no. 641762).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5521">This paper was edited by Martin De Kauwe and reviewed by Daniel Falster and three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., Chang, A., Ferrar, R., Xi, P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., and Nelkin, E.: The version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present), J. Hydrometeor, 4, 1147–1167, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004&lt;1147:TVGPCP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004&lt;1147:TVGPCP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., and McDowell, N. G.: On underestimation of
global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter
drought in the Anthropocene, Ecosphere, 6, 1–55,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00203.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1890/ES15-00203.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aragão, L. E. O. C., Malhi, Y., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S.,
Anderson, L. O., and Shimabukuro, Y. E.: Spatial patterns and fire response
of recent Amazonian droughts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L07701,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028946" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL028946</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Arnold, J. G., Williams, J. R., Nicks, A. D., and Sammons, N. B.: SWRRB: A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil and Water Resources Management,
J. Environ. Qual., 20, 309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1991.00472425002000010050x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2134/jeq1991.00472425002000010050x</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><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, Global 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.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><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., 114, 1–10,
<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.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Balsamo, G., Viterbo, P., Beijaars, A., van den Hurk, B., Hirschi, M.,
Betts, A. K., and Scipal, K.: A revised hydrology for the ECMWF model:
Verification from field site to terrestrial water storage and impact in the
integrated forecast system, J. Hydrometeorol., 10, 623–643,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM1068.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JHM1068.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Balsamo, G., Albergel, C., Beljaars, A., Boussetta, S., Brun, E., Cloke, H., Dee, D., Dutra, E., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Pappenberger, F., de Rosnay, P., Stockdale, T., and Vitart, F.<?pagebreak page4113?>: ERA-Interim/Land: a global land surface reanalysis data set, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 389–407, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-389-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-19-389-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Beck, H. E., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Levizzani, V., Schellekens, J., Miralles, D. G., Martens, B., and de Roo, A.: MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> global gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 589–615, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-589-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-589-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., Rudolf, B., Schamm, K., Schneider, U., and Ziese, M.: A description of the global land-surface precipitation data products of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre with sample applications including centennial (trend) analysis from 1901–present, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 71–99, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-71-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-5-71-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><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.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bonal, D., Bosc, A., Ponton, S., Goret, J., Burban, B., Gross, P.,
Bonnefonds, J. M., Elbers, J. A., Longdoz, B., Epron, D., Guehl, J., and
Granier, A.: Impact of severe dry season on net ecosystem exchange in the
Neotropical rainforest of French Guiana, Global Change Biol., 14,
1917–1933, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01610.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01610.x</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brum, M., Vadeboncoeur, M. A., Ivanov, V., Asbjornsen, H., Saleska, S.,
Alves, L. F., Penha, D., Dias, J. D., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Barros, F.,
Bittencourt, P., Pereira, L., and Oliveira, R. S.: Hydrological niche
segregation defines forest structure and drought tolerance strategies in a
seasonal Amazon forest, J. Ecol., 107, 318–333,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1365-2745.13022</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brunner, I., Herzog, C., Dawes, M. A., Arend, M., and Sperisen, C.: How tree
roots respond to drought, Front. Plant Sci., 6, 547,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00547" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fpls.2015.00547</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Canadell, J., Jackson, R. B., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E.,
and Schulze, E.-D.: Max rooting depth of vegetation types at the global
scale, Oecologica, 108, 583–595, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9812-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10705-016-9812-z</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., and Weber, U.: Global covariation
of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems, Nature,
514, 213–217, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ciemer, C., Boers, N., Hirota, M., Kurths, J., Müller-Hansen, F.,
Oliveira, R. S., and Winkelmann, R.: Higher resilience to climatic
disturbances in tropical vegetation exposed to more variable rainfall, Nat.
Geosci., 12, 174–179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0312-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-019-0312-z</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Cosby, B. J., Hornberger, G. M., Clapp, R. B., and Ginn, T.: A statistical
exploration of the relationships of soil moisture characteristics to the
physical properties of soils, Water Resour. Res., 20, 682–690, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Costa, M. H., Biajoli, M. C., Sanches, L., Malhado, A. C. M., Hutyra, L. R.,
Da Rocha, H. R., Aguiar, R. G., and De Araújo, A. C.: Atmospheric versus
vegetation controls of Amazonian tropical rain forest evapotranspiration:
Are the wet and seasonally dry rain forests any different?, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 115, G04021, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001179" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JG001179</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>da Rocha, H. R., Goulden, M. L., Miller, S. D., Menton, M., Pinto, L. D. V. O., Freitas, H. C. De, and Figueira Silva, E. M. A.: Seasonality of water and heat fluxes over a tropical forest in eastern Amazonia, Ecol. Appl., 14, 22–32, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1890/02-6001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1890/02-6001</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S.
B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P.,
Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., Mcnally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M.,
Morcrette, J. J., Park, B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C.,
Thépaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration
and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.828</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dirmeyer, P. A., Gao, X., Zhao, M., Guo, Z., Oki, T., and Hanasaki, N.: GSWP-2: Multimodel analysis and implications for our perception of the land surface, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 1381–1398, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-10-1381" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-87-10-1381</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ek, M. B., Mitchell, K. E., Lin, Y., Rogers, E., Grunmann, P., Koren, V.,
Gayno, G., and Tarpley, J. D.: Implementation of Noah land surface model
advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational
mesoscale Eta model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8851,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003296" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002jd003296</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eshel, A. and Grünzweig, J. M.: Root-shoot allometry of tropical forest
trees determined in a large-scale aeroponic system, Ann. Bot.-London, 112,
291–296, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs275" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/aob/mcs275</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B., and
Otero-Casal, C.: Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 10572–10577, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712381114" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1712381114</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fearnside, P. M.: Brazil's Amazonian forest carbon: the key to Southern
Amazonia's significance for global climate, Reg. Environ. Change, 18,
47–61, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1007-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10113-016-1007-2</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forkel, M., Carvalhais, N., Schaphoff, S., v. Bloh, W., Migliavacca, M., Thurner, M., and Thonicke, K.: Identifying environmental controls on vegetation greenness phenology through model–data integration, Biogeosciences, 11, 7025–7050, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7025-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-11-7025-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Guimberteau, M., Zhu, D., Maignan, F., Huang, Y., Yue, C., Dantec-Nédélec, S., Ottlé, C., Jornet-Puig, A., Bastos, A., Laurent, P., Goll, D., Bowring, S., Chang, J., Guenet, B., Tifafi, M., Peng, S., Krinner, G., Ducharne, A., Wang, F., Wang, T., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Yin, Z., Lauerwald, R., Joetzjer, E., Qiu, C., Kim, H., and Ciais, P.: ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model description and validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 121–163, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J., and Lister, D. H.: Updated
high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10
Dataset, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 623–642, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3711" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.3711</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hijmans, R. J. and van Etten, J.: raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling, R Packag. version 2 (8), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4114?><ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., Van New, E. H., and Scheffer, M.: Global Resilience
of Tropical Forest, Science, 334, 232–235,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210657" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1210657</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Huang, S., Titus, S. J., and Wiens, D. P.: Comparison of nonlinear
height-diameter functions for major Alberta tree species, Can. J. Forest Res., 22, 1297–1304, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ichii, K., Hashimoto, H., White, M. A., Potter, C., Hutyra, L. R., Huete, A.
R., Myneni, R. B., and Nemani, R. R.: Constraining rooting depths in tropical
rainforests using satellite data and ecosystem modeling for accurate
simulation of gross primary production seasonality, Global Change Biol.,
13, 67–77, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01277.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01277.x</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Jackson, R. B., Canadell, J., Ehleringer, J., Mooney, H., Sala, O., and
Schulze, E.: A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes,
Oecologica, 108, 389–411, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Jenik, J.: Roots and root systems in tropical trees, Trop. trees as living
Syst., p. 323, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, D. M., Domec, J.-C., Berry, Z. C., Schwantes, A. M., McCulloh, K. A., Woodruff, D. R., Polley, H. W., Wortemann, R., Swenson, J. J., Mackay, D. S., McDowell, N. G., and Jackson, R. B.: Co-occurring woody species have diverse hydraulic strategies and mortality rates during an extreme drought, Plant Cell Environ., 41, 576–588,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13121" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/pce.13121</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I. C.,
Leadley, P., Tautenhahn, S., Werner, G. D. A., Aakala, T., and Abedi, M.: TRY
plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access, Global Change Biol., 26, 119–188, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.14904</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kelley, D. I., Prentice, I. C., Harrison, S. P., Wang, H., Simard, M., Fisher, J. B., and Willis, K. O.: A comprehensive benchmarking system for evaluating global vegetation models, Biogeosciences, 10, 3313–3340, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3313-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-3313-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kim, Y., Knox, R. G., Longo, M., Medvigy, D., Hutyra, L. R., Pyle, E. H.,
Wofsy, S. C., Bras, R. L., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Seasonal carbon dynamics and
water fluxes in an Amazon rainforest, Global Change Biol., 18, 1322–1334,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02629.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02629.x</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kleidon, A. and Heimann, M.: A method of determining rooting depth from a
terrestrial biosphere model and its impacts on the global water and carbon
cycle, Global Change Biol., 4, 275–286,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00152.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00152.x</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kleidon, A. and Heimann, M.: Deep-rooted vegetation, Amazonian
deforestation, and climate: Results from a modelling study,
Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 8, 397–405, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00150.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00150.x</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kleidon, A. and Heimann, M.: Assessing the role of deep rooted vegetation in
the climate system with model simulations: Mechanism, comparison to
observations and implications for Amazonian deforestation, Clim. Dynam.,
16, 183–199, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820050012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s003820050012</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Krysanova, V., Müller-Wohlfeil, D.-I., and Becker, A.: Development and
test of a spatially distributed hydrological/water quality model for
mesoscale watersheds, Ecol. Model., 106, 261–289, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Langan, L., Higgins, S. I., and Scheiter, S.: Climate-biomes, pedo-biomes or
pyro-biomes: which world view explains the tropical forest-savanna boundary
in South America?, J. Biogeogr., 44, 2319–2330, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/jbi.13018</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lawrence, D. M., Oleson, K. W., Flanner, M. G., Thornton, P. E., Swenson, S.
C., Lawrence, P. J., Zeng, X., Yang, Z.-L., Levis, S., Sakaguchi, K., Bonan,
G. B., and Slater, A. G.: Parameterization improvements and functional and
structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M03001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011MS00045</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, J. E., Oliveira, R. S., Dawson, T. E., and Fung, I.: Root functioning
modifies seasonal climate, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102,
17576–17581, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508785102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0508785102</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Leuschner, C., Moser, G., Bertsch, C., Röderstein, M., and Hertel, D.:
Large altitudinal increase in tree root/shoot ratio in tropical mountain
forests of Ecuador, Basic Appl. Ecol., 8, 219–230, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lewis, S. L., Brando, P. M., Phillips, O. L., Van Der Heijden, G. M. F., and
Nepstad, D.: The 2010 Amazon drought, Science, 331, p. 554, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200807" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1200807</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Li, W., MacBean, N., Ciais, P., Defourny, P., Lamarche, C., Bontemps, S., Houghton, R. A., and Peng, S.: Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 219–234, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-219-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-10-219-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, Y. Y., Dorigo, W. A., Parinussa, R. M., De Jeu, R. A. M., Wagner, W.,
McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., and Van Dijk, A. I. J. M.: Trend-preserving
blending of passive and active microwave soil moisture retrievals, Remote
Sens. Environ., 123, 280–297, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.03.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2012.03.014</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, Y. Y., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., and de Jeu,
R. A. M.: Global vegetation biomass change (1988–2008) and attribution to
environmental and human drivers, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 22, 692–705,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/geb.12024</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Malhi, Y., Aragao, L. E. O. C., Galbraith, D., Huntingford, C., Fisher, R.,
Zelazowski, P., Sitch, S., McSweeney, C., and Meir, P.: Exploring the
likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon
rainforest, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 20610–20615,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804619106" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0804619106</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Markewitz, D., Devine, S., Davidson, E. A., Brando, P., and Nepstad, D. C.:
Soil moisture depletion under simulated drought in the Amazon: Impacts on
deep root uptake, New Phytol., 187, 592–607,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03391.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03391.x</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, R. A. M., Fernández-Prieto, D., Beck, H. E., Dorigo, W. A., and Verhoest, N. E. C.: GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1903–1925, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Masson, V., Champeaux, J. L., Chauvin, F., Meriguet, C., and Lacaze, R.: A
global database of land surface parameters at 1 km resolution in
meteorological and climate models, J. Climate, 16, 1261–1282,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)16&lt;1261:AGDOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(2003)16&lt;1261:AGDOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miralles, D. G., Holmes, T. R. H., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Meesters, A. G. C. A., and Dolman, A. J.: Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-15-453-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4115?><ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mokany, K., Raison, R. J., and Prokushkin, A. S.: Critical analysis of root:
Shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes, Global Change Biol., 12, 84–96,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nachtergaele, F., van Velthuizen, H. T., Verelst, L., Batjes, N., Dijkshoorn,
K., van Engelen, V., Fischer, G., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., and Petri, M.:
Harmonized world soil database, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, FAO,  Rome,  Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, available at: <uri>http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/</uri> (last access: 7 July 2021), 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nemani, R. R., Keeling, C. D., Hashimoto, H., Jolly, W. M., Piper, S. C.,
Tucker, C. J., Myneni, R. B., and Running, S. W.: Climate-driven increases in
global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999, Science, 300, 1560–1563, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082750" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1082750</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
New, M., Hulme, M., and Jones, P.: Representing twentieth century space-time
climate variability, Part II: development of a 1901–1996 monthly grids of
terrestrial surface climate, J. Climate, 13, 2217–2238, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nikolova, P. S., Zang, C., and Pretzsch, H.: Combining tree-ring analyses on
stems and coarse roots to study the growth dynamics of forest trees: A case
study on Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] H. Karst), Trees-Struct. Funct.,
25, 859–872, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0561-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00468-011-0561-y</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ostle, N. J., Smith, P., Fisher, R., Woodward, F. I., Fisher, J. B., Smith, J. U., Galbraith, D., Levy, P., Meir, P., McNamara, N. P., and Bardgett, R. D.: Integrating plant-soil interactions into global carbon cycle models, J. Ecol., 97, 851–863, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pelletier, J. D., Broxton, P. D., Hazenberg, P., Zeng, X., Troch, P. A.,
Niu, G.-Y., Williams, Z., Brunke, M. A., and Gochis, D.: A gridded global
data set of soil, intact regolith, and sedimentary deposit thicknesses for
regional and global land surface modeling, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8,
41–65, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001065" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017MS001065</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Poorter, H., Niklas, K. J., Reich, P. B., Oleksyn, J., Poot, P., and Mommer,
L.: Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of
interspecific variation and environmental control, New Phytol., 193,
30–50, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Prentice, I. C., Sykes, M. T., and Cramer, W.: A simulation model for the
transient effects of climate change on forest landscapes, Ecol. Model.,
65, 51–70, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>R Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing, R
Foundatoin for Statistical Computing, available at:
<uri>https://www.r-project.org/</uri> (last access: 23 January 2020), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
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, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Saatchi, S. S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T. A.,
Salas, W., Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S.,
White, L., Silman, M., and Morel, A.: Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks
in tropical regions across three continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
108, 9899–9904, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019576108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1019576108</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sakschewski, B., von Bloh, W., Drüke, M., Sörensson, A. A., Ruscica,
R., Langerwisch, F., Billing, M., Bereswill, S., Hirota, M., Oliveira, R.
S., Heinke, J., and Thonicke, K.: LPJmL4.0-VR Model Code, Zenodo [code],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709250" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4709250</ext-link>, 2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sakschewski, B., von Bloh, W., Drüke, M., Sörensson, A. A., Ruscica,
R., Langerwisch, F., Billing, M., Bereswill, S., Hirota, M., Oliveira, R.
S., Heinke, J., and Thonicke, K.: LPJmL4.0-VR Model Output, Zenodo [code], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709166" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4709166</ext-link>, 2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Saleska, S. R., Da Rocha, H. R., Huete, A. R., Nobre, A. D., Artaxo, P. E.,
and Shimabukuro, Y. E.: LBA-ECO CD-32 Flux Tower Network Data Compilation,
Brazilian Amazon: 1999–2006, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1174" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1174</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Rammig, A., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Knauer, J., Langerwisch, F., Lucht, W., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., and Waha, K.: LPJmL4 – a dynamic global vegetation model with managed land – Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1343–1375, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018</ext-link>, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., Waha, K., Stehfest, E., de Waal, L., Heyder, U., Gumpenberger, M., and Beringer, T.: LPJmL4 Model Code, V. 4.0, GFZ Data Services [code], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5880/pik.2018.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5880/pik.2018.002</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schymanski, S. J., Sivapalan, M., Roderick, M. L., Beringer, J., and Hutley, L. B.: An optimality-based model of the coupled soil moisture and root dynamics, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 913–932, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-913-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-12-913-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., and Wood, E. F.: Development of a 50-year
high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface
modeling, J. Climate, 19, 3088–3111, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3790.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3790.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shinozaki, K., Yoda, K., and Kira, T.: A quantitative analysis of plant form
– The pipe model theory, Jpn. J. Ecol., 14, 133–139, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18960/seitai.14.4_133" ext-link-type="DOI">10.18960/seitai.14.4_133</ext-link>, 1964.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>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, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sörensson, A. A. and Ruscica, R. C.: Intercomparison and Uncertainty
Assessment of Nine Evapotranspiration Estimates Over South America, Water
Resour. Res., 54, 2891–2908, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021682" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017WR021682</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Staal, A., Tuinenburg, O. A., Bosmans, J. H. C., Holmgren, M., Van Nes, E.
H., Scheffer, M., Zemp, D. C., and Dekker, S. C.: Forest-rainfall cascades
buffer against drought across the Amazon, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 539–543,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0177-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-018-0177-y</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Staver, A. C., Archibald, S., and Levin, S. A.: The global extent and
determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states, Science, 334, 230–232, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210465" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1210465</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tans, P. and Keeling, R.: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories (ESRL), Boulder, Colorado, USA, available at: <uri>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends</uri> (last access: 7 July 2021), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4116?><ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>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,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00175.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00175.x</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Waring, R. H., Schroeder, P. E., and Oren, R.: Application of the pipe model
theory to predict canopy leaf area, Can. J. Forest Res., 12, 556–560,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/x82-086" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/x82-086</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Warren, J. M., Hanson, P. J., Iversen, C. M., Kumar, J., Walker, A. P., and
Wullschleger, S. D.: Root structural and functional dynamics in terrestrial
biosphere models – evaluation and recommendations, New Phytol., 205,
59–78, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13034" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nph.13034</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weedon, G. P., Gomes, S., Viterbo, P., Shuttleworth, W. J., Blyth, E.,
Österle, H., Adam, J. C., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., and Best, M.:
Creation of the WATCH Forcing Data and Its Use to Assess Global and Regional
Reference Crop Evaporation over Land during the Twentieth Century, J.
Hydrometeorol., 12, 823–848, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jhm1369.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011jhm1369.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weedon, G. P., Balsamo, G., Bellouin, N., Gomes, S., Best, M. J., and
Viterbo, P.: Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data, Water
Resour. Res., 50, 7505–7514, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015638" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014WR015638</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wu, J., Albert, L. P., Lopes, A. P., Restrepo-Coupe, N., Hayek, M.,
Wiedemann, K. T., Guan, K., Stark, S. C., Christoffersen, B., Prohaska, N.,
Tavares, J. V., Marostica, S., Kobayashi, H., Ferreira, M. L., Campos, K.
S., Da Silva, R., Brando, P. M., Dye, D. G., Huxman, T. E., Huete, A. R.,
Nelson, B. W., and Saleska, S. R.: Leaf development and demography explain
photosynthetic seasonality in Amazon evergreen forests, Science,
351, 972–976, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aad5068</ext-link>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wuyts, B., Champneys, A. R., and House, J. I.: Amazonian forest-savanna
bistability and human impact, Nat. Commun., 8, 15519,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15519" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms15519</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xiao, C. W., Yuste, J. C., Janssens, I. A., Roskams, P., Nachtergale, L.,
Carrara, A., Sanchez, B. Y., and Ceulemans, R.: Above- and belowground
biomass and net primary production in a 73-year-old Scots pine forest,
Tree Physiol., 23, 505–516, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/23.8.505" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/treephys/23.8.505</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xiao, X., Hagen, S., Zhang, Q., Keller, M., and Moore, B.: Detecting leaf
phenology of seasonally moist tropical forests in South America with
multi-temporal MODIS images, Remote Sens. Environ., 103, 465–473,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.04.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2006.04.013</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zemp, D. C., Schleussner, C. F., Barbosa, H. M. J., Hirota, M., Montade, V.,
Sampaio, G., Staal, A., Wang-Erlandsson, L., and Rammig, A.: Self-amplified
Amazon forest loss due to vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks, Nat. Commun., 8,
14681, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14681" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms14681</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Variable tree rooting strategies are key for modelling the distribution, productivity and evapotranspiration of  tropical evergreen forests</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>A variety of modelling studies have suggested tree rooting depth
as a key variable to explain evapotranspiration rates, productivity and the
geographical distribution of evergreen forests in tropical South America.
However, none of those studies have acknowledged resource investment, timing and
physical constraints of tree rooting depth within a competitive environment,
undermining the ecological realism of their results. Here, we present an
approach of implementing variable rooting strategies and dynamic root growth
into the LPJmL4.0 (Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land) dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) and apply it to tropical and sub-tropical
South America under contemporary climate conditions. We show how competing
rooting strategies which underlie the trade-off between above- and
below-ground carbon investment lead to more realistic simulation of
intra-annual productivity and evapotranspiration and consequently of
forest cover and spatial biomass distribution. We find that climate and soil
depth determine a spatially heterogeneous pattern of mean rooting depth and
below-ground biomass across the study region. Our findings support the
hypothesis that the ability of evergreen trees to adjust their rooting
systems to seasonally dry climates is crucial to explaining the current
dominance, productivity and evapotranspiration of evergreen forests in
tropical South America.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., Chang, A., Ferrar, R., Xi, P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., and Nelkin, E.: The version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present), J. Hydrometeor, 4, 1147–1167, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004&lt;1147:TVGPCP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004&lt;1147:TVGPCP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., and McDowell, N. G.: On underestimation of
global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter
drought in the Anthropocene, Ecosphere, 6, 1–55,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00203.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00203.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Aragão, L. E. O. C., Malhi, Y., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S.,
Anderson, L. O., and Shimabukuro, Y. E.: Spatial patterns and fire response
of recent Amazonian droughts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L07701,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028946" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028946</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Arnold, J. G., Williams, J. R., Nicks, A. D., and Sammons, N. B.: SWRRB: A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil and Water Resources Management,
J. Environ. Qual., 20, 309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1991.00472425002000010050x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1991.00472425002000010050x</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</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, Global 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.bib6"><label>6</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., 114, 1–10,
<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.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Balsamo, G., Viterbo, P., Beijaars, A., van den Hurk, B., Hirschi, M.,
Betts, A. K., and Scipal, K.: A revised hydrology for the ECMWF model:
Verification from field site to terrestrial water storage and impact in the
integrated forecast system, J. Hydrometeorol., 10, 623–643,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM1068.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM1068.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Balsamo, G., Albergel, C., Beljaars, A., Boussetta, S., Brun, E., Cloke, H., Dee, D., Dutra, E., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Pappenberger, F., de Rosnay, P., Stockdale, T., and Vitart, F.: ERA-Interim/Land: a global land surface reanalysis data set, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 389–407, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-389-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-389-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Beck, H. E., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Levizzani, V., Schellekens, J., Miralles, D. G., Martens, B., and de Roo, A.: MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25° global gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 589–615, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-589-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-589-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., Rudolf, B., Schamm, K., Schneider, U., and Ziese, M.: A description of the global land-surface precipitation data products of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre with sample applications including centennial (trend) analysis from 1901–present, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 71–99, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-71-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-71-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</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>12</label><mixed-citation>
Bonal, D., Bosc, A., Ponton, S., Goret, J., Burban, B., Gross, P.,
Bonnefonds, J. M., Elbers, J. A., Longdoz, B., Epron, D., Guehl, J., and
Granier, A.: Impact of severe dry season on net ecosystem exchange in the
Neotropical rainforest of French Guiana, Global Change Biol., 14,
1917–1933, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01610.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01610.x</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Brum, M., Vadeboncoeur, M. A., Ivanov, V., Asbjornsen, H., Saleska, S.,
Alves, L. F., Penha, D., Dias, J. D., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Barros, F.,
Bittencourt, P., Pereira, L., and Oliveira, R. S.: Hydrological niche
segregation defines forest structure and drought tolerance strategies in a
seasonal Amazon forest, J. Ecol., 107, 318–333,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13022</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Brunner, I., Herzog, C., Dawes, M. A., Arend, M., and Sperisen, C.: How tree
roots respond to drought, Front. Plant Sci., 6, 547,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00547" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00547</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Canadell, J., Jackson, R. B., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E.,
and Schulze, E.-D.: Max rooting depth of vegetation types at the global
scale, Oecologica, 108, 583–595, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9812-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9812-z</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., and Weber, U.: Global covariation
of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems, Nature,
514, 213–217, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Ciemer, C., Boers, N., Hirota, M., Kurths, J., Müller-Hansen, F.,
Oliveira, R. S., and Winkelmann, R.: Higher resilience to climatic
disturbances in tropical vegetation exposed to more variable rainfall, Nat.
Geosci., 12, 174–179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0312-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0312-z</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Cosby, B. J., Hornberger, G. M., Clapp, R. B., and Ginn, T.: A statistical
exploration of the relationships of soil moisture characteristics to the
physical properties of soils, Water Resour. Res., 20, 682–690, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Costa, M. H., Biajoli, M. C., Sanches, L., Malhado, A. C. M., Hutyra, L. R.,
Da Rocha, H. R., Aguiar, R. G., and De Araújo, A. C.: Atmospheric versus
vegetation controls of Amazonian tropical rain forest evapotranspiration:
Are the wet and seasonally dry rain forests any different?, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 115, G04021, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001179" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001179</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
da Rocha, H. R., Goulden, M. L., Miller, S. D., Menton, M., Pinto, L. D. V. O., Freitas, H. C. De, and Figueira Silva, E. M. A.: Seasonality of water and heat fluxes over a tropical forest in eastern Amazonia, Ecol. Appl., 14, 22–32, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/02-6001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1890/02-6001</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S.
B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P.,
Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., Mcnally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M.,
Morcrette, J. J., Park, B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C.,
Thépaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration
and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Dirmeyer, P. A., Gao, X., Zhao, M., Guo, Z., Oki, T., and Hanasaki, N.: GSWP-2: Multimodel analysis and implications for our perception of the land surface, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 1381–1398, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-10-1381" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-10-1381</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Ek, M. B., Mitchell, K. E., Lin, Y., Rogers, E., Grunmann, P., Koren, V.,
Gayno, G., and Tarpley, J. D.: Implementation of Noah land surface model
advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational
mesoscale Eta model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8851,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003296" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003296</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Eshel, A. and Grünzweig, J. M.: Root-shoot allometry of tropical forest
trees determined in a large-scale aeroponic system, Ann. Bot.-London, 112,
291–296, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs275" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs275</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B., and
Otero-Casal, C.: Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 10572–10577, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712381114" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712381114</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Fearnside, P. M.: Brazil's Amazonian forest carbon: the key to Southern
Amazonia's significance for global climate, Reg. Environ. Change, 18,
47–61, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1007-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1007-2</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Forkel, M., Carvalhais, N., Schaphoff, S., v. Bloh, W., Migliavacca, M., Thurner, M., and Thonicke, K.: Identifying environmental controls on vegetation greenness phenology through model–data integration, Biogeosciences, 11, 7025–7050, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7025-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7025-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Guimberteau, M., Zhu, D., Maignan, F., Huang, Y., Yue, C., Dantec-Nédélec, S., Ottlé, C., Jornet-Puig, A., Bastos, A., Laurent, P., Goll, D., Bowring, S., Chang, J., Guenet, B., Tifafi, M., Peng, S., Krinner, G., Ducharne, A., Wang, F., Wang, T., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Yin, Z., Lauerwald, R., Joetzjer, E., Qiu, C., Kim, H., and Ciais, P.: ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model description and validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 121–163, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J., and Lister, D. H.: Updated
high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10
Dataset, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 623–642, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3711" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3711</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Hijmans, R. J. and van Etten, J.: raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling, R Packag. version 2 (8), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., Van New, E. H., and Scheffer, M.: Global Resilience
of Tropical Forest, Science, 334, 232–235,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210657" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210657</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, S., Titus, S. J., and Wiens, D. P.: Comparison of nonlinear
height-diameter functions for major Alberta tree species, Can. J. Forest Res., 22, 1297–1304, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Ichii, K., Hashimoto, H., White, M. A., Potter, C., Hutyra, L. R., Huete, A.
R., Myneni, R. B., and Nemani, R. R.: Constraining rooting depths in tropical
rainforests using satellite data and ecosystem modeling for accurate
simulation of gross primary production seasonality, Global Change Biol.,
13, 67–77, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01277.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01277.x</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Jackson, R. B., Canadell, J., Ehleringer, J., Mooney, H., Sala, O., and
Schulze, E.: A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes,
Oecologica, 108, 389–411, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Jenik, J.: Roots and root systems in tropical trees, Trop. trees as living
Syst., p. 323, 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, D. M., Domec, J.-C., Berry, Z. C., Schwantes, A. M., McCulloh, K. A., Woodruff, D. R., Polley, H. W., Wortemann, R., Swenson, J. J., Mackay, D. S., McDowell, N. G., and Jackson, R. B.: Co-occurring woody species have diverse hydraulic strategies and mortality rates during an extreme drought, Plant Cell Environ., 41, 576–588,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13121" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13121</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I. C.,
Leadley, P., Tautenhahn, S., Werner, G. D. A., Aakala, T., and Abedi, M.: TRY
plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access, Global Change Biol., 26, 119–188, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Kelley, D. I., Prentice, I. C., Harrison, S. P., Wang, H., Simard, M., Fisher, J. B., and Willis, K. O.: A comprehensive benchmarking system for evaluating global vegetation models, Biogeosciences, 10, 3313–3340, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3313-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3313-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, Y., Knox, R. G., Longo, M., Medvigy, D., Hutyra, L. R., Pyle, E. H.,
Wofsy, S. C., Bras, R. L., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Seasonal carbon dynamics and
water fluxes in an Amazon rainforest, Global Change Biol., 18, 1322–1334,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02629.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02629.x</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Kleidon, A. and Heimann, M.: A method of determining rooting depth from a
terrestrial biosphere model and its impacts on the global water and carbon
cycle, Global Change Biol., 4, 275–286,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00152.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00152.x</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Kleidon, A. and Heimann, M.: Deep-rooted vegetation, Amazonian
deforestation, and climate: Results from a modelling study,
Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 8, 397–405, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00150.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00150.x</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Kleidon, A. and Heimann, M.: Assessing the role of deep rooted vegetation in
the climate system with model simulations: Mechanism, comparison to
observations and implications for Amazonian deforestation, Clim. Dynam.,
16, 183–199, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820050012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820050012</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Krysanova, V., Müller-Wohlfeil, D.-I., and Becker, A.: Development and
test of a spatially distributed hydrological/water quality model for
mesoscale watersheds, Ecol. Model., 106, 261–289, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Langan, L., Higgins, S. I., and Scheiter, S.: Climate-biomes, pedo-biomes or
pyro-biomes: which world view explains the tropical forest-savanna boundary
in South America?, J. Biogeogr., 44, 2319–2330, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13018</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Lawrence, D. M., Oleson, K. W., Flanner, M. G., Thornton, P. E., Swenson, S.
C., Lawrence, P. J., Zeng, X., Yang, Z.-L., Levis, S., Sakaguchi, K., Bonan,
G. B., and Slater, A. G.: Parameterization improvements and functional and
structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M03001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, J. E., Oliveira, R. S., Dawson, T. E., and Fung, I.: Root functioning
modifies seasonal climate, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102,
17576–17581, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508785102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508785102</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Leuschner, C., Moser, G., Bertsch, C., Röderstein, M., and Hertel, D.:
Large altitudinal increase in tree root/shoot ratio in tropical mountain
forests of Ecuador, Basic Appl. Ecol., 8, 219–230, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Lewis, S. L., Brando, P. M., Phillips, O. L., Van Der Heijden, G. M. F., and
Nepstad, D.: The 2010 Amazon drought, Science, 331, p. 554, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200807" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200807</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Li, W., MacBean, N., Ciais, P., Defourny, P., Lamarche, C., Bontemps, S., Houghton, R. A., and Peng, S.: Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 219–234, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-219-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-219-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Y. Y., Dorigo, W. A., Parinussa, R. M., De Jeu, R. A. M., Wagner, W.,
McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., and Van Dijk, A. I. J. M.: Trend-preserving
blending of passive and active microwave soil moisture retrievals, Remote
Sens. Environ., 123, 280–297, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.03.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.03.014</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Y. Y., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., and de Jeu,
R. A. M.: Global vegetation biomass change (1988–2008) and attribution to
environmental and human drivers, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 22, 692–705,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12024</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Malhi, Y., Aragao, L. E. O. C., Galbraith, D., Huntingford, C., Fisher, R.,
Zelazowski, P., Sitch, S., McSweeney, C., and Meir, P.: Exploring the
likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon
rainforest, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 20610–20615,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804619106" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804619106</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Markewitz, D., Devine, S., Davidson, E. A., Brando, P., and Nepstad, D. C.:
Soil moisture depletion under simulated drought in the Amazon: Impacts on
deep root uptake, New Phytol., 187, 592–607,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03391.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03391.x</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, R. A. M., Fernández-Prieto, D., Beck, H. E., Dorigo, W. A., and Verhoest, N. E. C.: GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1903–1925, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Masson, V., Champeaux, J. L., Chauvin, F., Meriguet, C., and Lacaze, R.: A
global database of land surface parameters at 1&thinsp;km resolution in
meteorological and climate models, J. Climate, 16, 1261–1282,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)16&lt;1261:AGDOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)16&lt;1261:AGDOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Miralles, D. G., Holmes, T. R. H., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Meesters, A. G. C. A., and Dolman, A. J.: Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Mokany, K., Raison, R. J., and Prokushkin, A. S.: Critical analysis of root:
Shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes, Global Change Biol., 12, 84–96,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Nachtergaele, F., van Velthuizen, H. T., Verelst, L., Batjes, N., Dijkshoorn,
K., van Engelen, V., Fischer, G., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., and Petri, M.:
Harmonized world soil database, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, FAO,  Rome,  Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, available at: <a href="http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 7 July 2021), 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Nemani, R. R., Keeling, C. D., Hashimoto, H., Jolly, W. M., Piper, S. C.,
Tucker, C. J., Myneni, R. B., and Running, S. W.: Climate-driven increases in
global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999, Science, 300, 1560–1563, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082750" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082750</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
New, M., Hulme, M., and Jones, P.: Representing twentieth century space-time
climate variability, Part II: development of a 1901–1996 monthly grids of
terrestrial surface climate, J. Climate, 13, 2217–2238, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Nikolova, P. S., Zang, C., and Pretzsch, H.: Combining tree-ring analyses on
stems and coarse roots to study the growth dynamics of forest trees: A case
study on Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] H. Karst), Trees-Struct. Funct.,
25, 859–872, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0561-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0561-y</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Ostle, N. J., Smith, P., Fisher, R., Woodward, F. I., Fisher, J. B., Smith, J. U., Galbraith, D., Levy, P., Meir, P., McNamara, N. P., and Bardgett, R. D.: Integrating plant-soil interactions into global carbon cycle models, J. Ecol., 97, 851–863, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Pelletier, J. D., Broxton, P. D., Hazenberg, P., Zeng, X., Troch, P. A.,
Niu, G.-Y., Williams, Z., Brunke, M. A., and Gochis, D.: A gridded global
data set of soil, intact regolith, and sedimentary deposit thicknesses for
regional and global land surface modeling, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8,
41–65, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001065" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001065</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Poorter, H., Niklas, K. J., Reich, P. B., Oleksyn, J., Poot, P., and Mommer,
L.: Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of
interspecific variation and environmental control, New Phytol., 193,
30–50, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Prentice, I. C., Sykes, M. T., and Cramer, W.: A simulation model for the
transient effects of climate change on forest landscapes, Ecol. Model.,
65, 51–70, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
R Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing, R
Foundatoin for Statistical Computing, available at:
<a href="https://www.r-project.org/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 23 January 2020), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
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, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Saatchi, S. S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T. A.,
Salas, W., Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S.,
White, L., Silman, M., and Morel, A.: Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks
in tropical regions across three continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
108, 9899–9904, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019576108" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019576108</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Sakschewski, B., von Bloh, W., Drüke, M., Sörensson, A. A., Ruscica,
R., Langerwisch, F., Billing, M., Bereswill, S., Hirota, M., Oliveira, R.
S., Heinke, J., and Thonicke, K.: LPJmL4.0-VR Model Code, Zenodo [code],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709250" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709250</a>, 2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Sakschewski, B., von Bloh, W., Drüke, M., Sörensson, A. A., Ruscica,
R., Langerwisch, F., Billing, M., Bereswill, S., Hirota, M., Oliveira, R.
S., Heinke, J., and Thonicke, K.: LPJmL4.0-VR Model Output, Zenodo [code], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709166" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709166</a>, 2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Saleska, S. R., Da Rocha, H. R., Huete, A. R., Nobre, A. D., Artaxo, P. E.,
and Shimabukuro, Y. E.: LBA-ECO CD-32 Flux Tower Network Data Compilation,
Brazilian Amazon: 1999–2006, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1174" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1174</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Rammig, A., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Knauer, J., Langerwisch, F., Lucht, W., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., and Waha, K.: LPJmL4 – a dynamic global vegetation model with managed land – Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1343–1375, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018</a>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., Waha, K., Stehfest, E., de Waal, L., Heyder, U., Gumpenberger, M., and Beringer, T.: LPJmL4 Model Code, V. 4.0, GFZ Data Services [code], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5880/pik.2018.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5880/pik.2018.002</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Schymanski, S. J., Sivapalan, M., Roderick, M. L., Beringer, J., and Hutley, L. B.: An optimality-based model of the coupled soil moisture and root dynamics, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 913–932, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-913-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-913-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., and Wood, E. F.: Development of a 50-year
high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface
modeling, J. Climate, 19, 3088–3111, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3790.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3790.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Shinozaki, K., Yoda, K., and Kira, T.: A quantitative analysis of plant form
– The pipe model theory, Jpn. J. Ecol., 14, 133–139, <a href="https://doi.org/10.18960/seitai.14.4_133" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.18960/seitai.14.4_133</a>, 1964.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
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, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Sörensson, A. A. and Ruscica, R. C.: Intercomparison and Uncertainty
Assessment of Nine Evapotranspiration Estimates Over South America, Water
Resour. Res., 54, 2891–2908, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021682" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021682</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Staal, A., Tuinenburg, O. A., Bosmans, J. H. C., Holmgren, M., Van Nes, E.
H., Scheffer, M., Zemp, D. C., and Dekker, S. C.: Forest-rainfall cascades
buffer against drought across the Amazon, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 539–543,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0177-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0177-y</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Staver, A. C., Archibald, S., and Levin, S. A.: The global extent and
determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states, Science, 334, 230–232, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210465" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210465</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Tans, P. and Keeling, R.: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories (ESRL), Boulder, Colorado, USA, available at: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends" target="_blank"/> (last access: 7 July 2021), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
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,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00175.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00175.x</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Waring, R. H., Schroeder, P. E., and Oren, R.: Application of the pipe model
theory to predict canopy leaf area, Can. J. Forest Res., 12, 556–560,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/x82-086" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/x82-086</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Warren, J. M., Hanson, P. J., Iversen, C. M., Kumar, J., Walker, A. P., and
Wullschleger, S. D.: Root structural and functional dynamics in terrestrial
biosphere models – evaluation and recommendations, New Phytol., 205,
59–78, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13034" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13034</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Weedon, G. P., Gomes, S., Viterbo, P., Shuttleworth, W. J., Blyth, E.,
Österle, H., Adam, J. C., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., and Best, M.:
Creation of the WATCH Forcing Data and Its Use to Assess Global and Regional
Reference Crop Evaporation over Land during the Twentieth Century, J.
Hydrometeorol., 12, 823–848, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jhm1369.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jhm1369.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Weedon, G. P., Balsamo, G., Bellouin, N., Gomes, S., Best, M. J., and
Viterbo, P.: Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data, Water
Resour. Res., 50, 7505–7514, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015638" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015638</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, J., Albert, L. P., Lopes, A. P., Restrepo-Coupe, N., Hayek, M.,
Wiedemann, K. T., Guan, K., Stark, S. C., Christoffersen, B., Prohaska, N.,
Tavares, J. V., Marostica, S., Kobayashi, H., Ferreira, M. L., Campos, K.
S., Da Silva, R., Brando, P. M., Dye, D. G., Huxman, T. E., Huete, A. R.,
Nelson, B. W., and Saleska, S. R.: Leaf development and demography explain
photosynthetic seasonality in Amazon evergreen forests, Science,
351, 972–976, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5068" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5068</a>, 2016.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Wuyts, B., Champneys, A. R., and House, J. I.: Amazonian forest-savanna
bistability and human impact, Nat. Commun., 8, 15519,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15519" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15519</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Xiao, C. W., Yuste, J. C., Janssens, I. A., Roskams, P., Nachtergale, L.,
Carrara, A., Sanchez, B. Y., and Ceulemans, R.: Above- and belowground
biomass and net primary production in a 73-year-old Scots pine forest,
Tree Physiol., 23, 505–516, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/23.8.505" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/23.8.505</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Xiao, X., Hagen, S., Zhang, Q., Keller, M., and Moore, B.: Detecting leaf
phenology of seasonally moist tropical forests in South America with
multi-temporal MODIS images, Remote Sens. Environ., 103, 465–473,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.04.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.04.013</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Zemp, D. C., Schleussner, C. F., Barbosa, H. M. J., Hirota, M., Montade, V.,
Sampaio, G., Staal, A., Wang-Erlandsson, L., and Rammig, A.: Self-amplified
Amazon forest loss due to vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks, Nat. Commun., 8,
14681, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14681" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14681</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
