Assessment of the impacts of biological nitrogen fixation structural uncertainty in CMIP6 earth system models

Davies-Barnard, Taraka; Zaehle, Sönke; Friedlingstein, Pierre

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3491-2022

Articles | Volume 19, issue 14

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3491-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3491-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 14

Research article

|

27 Jul 2022

Research article |

| 27 Jul 2022

Assessment of the impacts of biological nitrogen fixation structural uncertainty in CMIP6 earth system models

Taraka Davies-Barnard, Sönke Zaehle, and Pierre Friedlingstein

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Jul 2022)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Nov 2021)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on bg-2021-290', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Dec 2021

See the attachment.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-290-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Taraka Davies-Barnard, 25 Mar 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2021-290/bg-2021-290-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-290-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on bg-2021-290', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2022

I can only make few editorial comments on this manuscript:

135-136: confusion in the numbering of figures 1b, 1c, 1d.

144-145: in figure 3 the units of measurement are in kgN, and in the text - in kg.

152-153: the marker "b" is missing in Figure 3.

187-200: figures 4c, 4d, 4e are missing in the manuscript.

470-…: we see BNF for the periods 1980-2014 (Figure 1), 1980-2015 (Figure 2), 2005-2014 (Figure SI 2). May be it would be better to average BNF estimates for the period of 1980-2014.

I think this is a very good student-level technical study. I do not see new scientific results in this manuscript. For these reasons, I consider this article to be inappropriate for Biogeosciences status.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-290-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Taraka Davies-Barnard, 25 Mar 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2021-290/bg-2021-290-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-290-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (01 Apr 2022) by Alexey V. Eliseev

AR by Taraka Davies-Barnard on behalf of the Authors (01 Apr 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Apr 2022) by Alexey V. Eliseev

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 May 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (06 Jun 2022)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Jun 2022) by Alexey V. Eliseev

AR by Taraka Davies-Barnard on behalf of the Authors (18 Jun 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (25 Jun 2022) by Alexey V. Eliseev

AR by Taraka Davies-Barnard on behalf of the Authors (27 Jun 2022)

Download

Article (1011 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Biological nitrogen fixation is the largest natural input of new nitrogen onto land. Earth system models mainly represent global total terrestrial biological nitrogen fixation within observational uncertainties but overestimate tropical fixation. The model range of increase in biological nitrogen fixation in the SSP3-7.0 scenario is 3 % to 87 %. While biological nitrogen fixation is a key source of new nitrogen, its predictive power for net primary productivity in models is limited.