Articles | Volume 20, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2265-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2265-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
20 Jun 2023
Research article |
| 20 Jun 2023
| 20 Jun 2023
Mapping of ESA's Climate Change Initiative land cover data to plant functional types for use in the CLASSIC land model
Climate Processes Section, Climate Research Division, Environment and
Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
Vivek K. Arora
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research
Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada
Paul Bartlett
Climate Processes Section, Climate Research Division, Environment and
Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
Climate Processes Section, Climate Research Division, Environment and
Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
Salvatore R. Curasi
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton
University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Climate Processes Section, Climate Research Division, Environment and
Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada
Related authors
Libo Wang, Lawrence Mudryk, Joe R. Melton, Colleen Mortimer, Jason Cole, Gesa Meyer, Paul Bartlett, and Mickaël Lalande
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6597–6621, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6597-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6597-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study shows that an alternate snow cover fraction parameterization significantly improves snow simulation by CLASSIC in mountainous areas for all three choices of meteorological datasets. Annual mean bias, unbiased root mean squared area, and correlation improve by 75 %, 32 %, and 7 % when evaluated with MODIS observations over the Northern Hemisphere. We also link relative biases in the meteorological forcing data to differences in simulated snow water equivalent and snow cover fraction.
Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, and Libo Wang
Biogeosciences, 21, 3339–3371, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3339-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3339-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Terrestrial biosphere models can either prescribe the geographical distribution of biomes or simulate them dynamically, capturing climate-change-driven biome shifts. We isolate and examine the differences between these different land cover implementations. We find that the simulated terrestrial carbon sink at the end of the 21st century is twice as large in simulations with dynamic land cover than in simulations with prescribed land cover due to important range shifts in the Arctic and Amazon.
Michael Sigmond, James Anstey, Vivek Arora, Ruth Digby, Nathan Gillett, Viatcheslav Kharin, William Merryfield, Catherine Reader, John Scinocca, Neil Swart, John Virgin, Carsten Abraham, Jason Cole, Nicolas Lambert, Woo-Sung Lee, Yongxiao Liang, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, Knut von Salzen, Christian Seiler, Clint Seinen, Andrew Shao, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Libo Wang, and Duo Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6553–6591, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new activity which aims to organize the analysis of biases in the Canadian Earth System model (CanESM) in a systematic manner. Results of this “Analysis for Development” (A4D) activity includes a new CanESM version, CanESM5.1, which features substantial improvements regarding the simulation of dust and stratospheric temperatures, a second CanESM5.1 variant with reduced climate sensitivity, and insights into potential avenues to reduce various other model biases.
Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, Libo Wang, and Sian Kou-Giesbrecht
Biogeosciences, 20, 1313–1355, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The behaviour of natural systems is now very often represented through mathematical models. These models represent our understanding of how nature works. Of course, nature does not care about our understanding. Since our understanding is not perfect, evaluating models is challenging, and there are uncertainties. This paper illustrates this uncertainty for land models and argues that evaluating models in light of the uncertainty in various components provides useful information.
Christian Seiler, Joe R. Melton, Vivek K. Arora, and Libo Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates how well the CLASSIC land surface model reproduces the energy, water, and carbon cycle when compared against a wide range of global observations. Special attention is paid to how uncertainties in the data used to drive and evaluate the model affect model skill. Our results show the importance of incorporating uncertainties when evaluating land surface models and that failing to do so may potentially misguide future model development.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Libo Wang, Lawrence Mudryk, Joe R. Melton, Colleen Mortimer, Jason Cole, Gesa Meyer, Paul Bartlett, and Mickaël Lalande
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6597–6621, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6597-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6597-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study shows that an alternate snow cover fraction parameterization significantly improves snow simulation by CLASSIC in mountainous areas for all three choices of meteorological datasets. Annual mean bias, unbiased root mean squared area, and correlation improve by 75 %, 32 %, and 7 % when evaluated with MODIS observations over the Northern Hemisphere. We also link relative biases in the meteorological forcing data to differences in simulated snow water equivalent and snow cover fraction.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4399–4416, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone and greenhouse gases alone are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
Nikolina Mileva, Julia Pongratz, Vivek K. Arora, Akihiko Ito, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Sonali S. McDermid, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Roland Séférian, Yanwu Zhang, and Wolfgang Buermann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-979, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-979, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Despite forests being so important for mitigating climate change, there are still uncertainties about how much the changes in forest cover contribute to the cooling/warming of the climate. Climate models and real-world observations often disagree about the magnitude and even the direction of these changes. We constrain climate models scenarios of widespread deforestation with satellite and in-situ data and show that models still have difficulties representing the movement of heat and water.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Vivek K. Arora, Aranildo Lima, and Rajesh Shrestha
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 291–312, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-291-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-291-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a Canada-wide assessment of climate change impacts on the hydro-climatology of the region's major river basins. We find that precipitation, runoff, and temperature are all expected to increase over Canada in the future. The northerly Mackenzie and Yukon rivers are relatively less affected by climate change compared to the southerly Fraser and Columbia rivers, which are located in the milder northwestern Pacific region.
Cynthia Whaley, Montana Etten-Bohm, Courtney Schumacher, Ayodeji Akingunola, Vivek Arora, Jason Cole, Michael Lazare, David Plummer, Knut von Salzen, and Barbara Winter
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7141–7155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes how lightning was added as a process in the Canadian Earth System Model in order to interactively respond to climate changes. As lightning is an important cause of global wildfires, this new model development allows for more realistic projections of how wildfires may change in the future, responding to a changing climate.
Misa Ishizawa, Douglas Chan, Doug Worthy, Elton Chan, Felix Vogel, Joe R. Melton, and Vivek K. Arora
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10013–10038, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) emissions in Canada for 2007–2017 were estimated using Canada’s surface greenhouse gas measurements. The estimated emissions show no significant trend, but emission uncertainty was reduced as more measurement sites became available. Notably for climate change, we find the wetland CH4 emissions show a positive correlation with surface air temperature in summer. Canada’s measurement network could monitor future CH4 emission changes and compliance with climate change mitigation goals.
Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, and Libo Wang
Biogeosciences, 21, 3339–3371, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3339-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3339-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Terrestrial biosphere models can either prescribe the geographical distribution of biomes or simulate them dynamically, capturing climate-change-driven biome shifts. We isolate and examine the differences between these different land cover implementations. We find that the simulated terrestrial carbon sink at the end of the 21st century is twice as large in simulations with dynamic land cover than in simulations with prescribed land cover due to important range shifts in the Arctic and Amazon.
Salvatore R. Curasi, Joe R. Melton, Elyn R. Humphreys, Txomin Hermosilla, and Michael A. Wulder
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2683–2704, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Canadian forests are responding to fire, harvest, and climate change. Models need to quantify these processes and their carbon and energy cycling impacts. We develop a scheme that, based on satellite records, represents fire, harvest, and the sparsely vegetated areas that these processes generate. We evaluate model performance and demonstrate the impacts of disturbance on carbon and energy cycling. This work has implications for land surface modeling and assessing Canada’s terrestrial C cycle.
Ali Asaadi, Jörg Schwinger, Hanna Lee, Jerry Tjiputra, Vivek Arora, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yeray Santana-Falcón, and Chris D. Jones
Biogeosciences, 21, 411–435, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon cycle feedback metrics are employed to assess phases of positive and negative CO2 emissions. When emissions become negative, we find that the model disagreement in feedback metrics increases more strongly than expected from the assumption that the uncertainties accumulate linearly with time. The geographical patterns of such metrics over land highlight that differences in response between tropical/subtropical and temperate/boreal ecosystems are a major source of model disagreement.
Michael Sigmond, James Anstey, Vivek Arora, Ruth Digby, Nathan Gillett, Viatcheslav Kharin, William Merryfield, Catherine Reader, John Scinocca, Neil Swart, John Virgin, Carsten Abraham, Jason Cole, Nicolas Lambert, Woo-Sung Lee, Yongxiao Liang, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, Knut von Salzen, Christian Seiler, Clint Seinen, Andrew Shao, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Libo Wang, and Duo Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6553–6591, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new activity which aims to organize the analysis of biases in the Canadian Earth System model (CanESM) in a systematic manner. Results of this “Analysis for Development” (A4D) activity includes a new CanESM version, CanESM5.1, which features substantial improvements regarding the simulation of dust and stratospheric temperatures, a second CanESM5.1 variant with reduced climate sensitivity, and insights into potential avenues to reduce various other model biases.
Jason Neil Steven Cole, Knut von Salzen, Jiangnan Li, John Scinocca, David Plummer, Vivek Arora, Norman McFarlane, Michael Lazare, Murray MacKay, and Diana Verseghy
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5427–5448, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5427-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5427-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Canadian Atmospheric Model version 5 (CanAM5) is used to simulate on a global scale the climate of Earth's atmosphere, land, and lakes. We document changes to the physics in CanAM5 since the last major version of the model (CanAM4) and evaluate the climate simulated relative to observations and CanAM4. The climate simulated by CanAM5 is similar to CanAM4, but there are improvements, including better simulation of temperature and precipitation over the Amazon and better simulation of cloud.
Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, Almut Arneth, Stefanie Falk, Atul K. Jain, Fortunat Joos, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Stephen Sitch, Michael O'Sullivan, Naiqing Pan, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Nicolas Vuichard, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 767–795, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Nitrogen (N) is an essential limiting nutrient to terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration. We evaluate N cycling in an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models. We find that variability in N processes across models is large. Models tended to overestimate C storage per unit N in vegetation and soil, which could have consequences for projecting the future terrestrial C sink. However, N cycling measurements are highly uncertain, and more are necessary to guide the development of N cycling in models.
Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, Libo Wang, and Sian Kou-Giesbrecht
Biogeosciences, 20, 1313–1355, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The behaviour of natural systems is now very often represented through mathematical models. These models represent our understanding of how nature works. Of course, nature does not care about our understanding. Since our understanding is not perfect, evaluating models is challenging, and there are uncertainties. This paper illustrates this uncertainty for land models and argues that evaluating models in light of the uncertainty in various components provides useful information.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Joe R. Melton, Ed Chan, Koreen Millard, Matthew Fortier, R. Scott Winton, Javier M. Martín-López, Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz, Darren Kidd, and Louis V. Verchot
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4709–4738, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4709-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4709-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Peat-ML is a high-resolution global peatland extent map generated using machine learning techniques. Peatlands are important in the global carbon and water cycles, but their extent is poorly known. We generated Peat-ML using drivers of peatland formation including climate, soil, geomorphology, and vegetation data, and we train the model with regional peatland maps. Our accuracy estimation approaches suggest Peat-ML is of similar or higher quality than other available peatland mapping products.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Alexander J. Winkler, Ranga B. Myneni, Alexis Hannart, Stephen Sitch, Vanessa Haverd, Danica Lombardozzi, Vivek K. Arora, Julia Pongratz, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Daniel S. Goll, Etsushi Kato, Hanqin Tian, Almut Arneth, Pierre Friedlingstein, Atul K. Jain, Sönke Zaehle, and Victor Brovkin
Biogeosciences, 18, 4985–5010, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Satellite observations since the early 1980s show that Earth's greening trend is slowing down and that browning clusters have been emerging, especially in the last 2 decades. A collection of model simulations in conjunction with causal theory points at climatic changes as a key driver of vegetation changes in natural ecosystems. Most models underestimate the observed vegetation browning, especially in tropical rainforests, which could be due to an excessive CO2 fertilization effect in models.
Christian Seiler, Joe R. Melton, Vivek K. Arora, and Libo Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates how well the CLASSIC land surface model reproduces the energy, water, and carbon cycle when compared against a wide range of global observations. Special attention is paid to how uncertainties in the data used to drive and evaluate the model affect model skill. Our results show the importance of incorporating uncertainties when evaluating land surface models and that failing to do so may potentially misguide future model development.
Ali Asaadi and Vivek K. Arora
Biogeosciences, 18, 669–706, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-669-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-669-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
More than a quarter of the current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are taken up by land, reducing the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. This is because of the CO2 fertilization effect which benefits 80 % of global vegetation. However, if nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients cannot keep up with increasing atmospheric CO2, the magnitude of this terrestrial ecosystem service may reduce in future. This paper implements nitrogen constraints on photosynthesis in a model to understand the mechanisms involved.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Lena R. Boysen, Victor Brovkin, Julia Pongratz, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Nicolas Vuichard, Philippe Peylin, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yanwu Zhang, Matthias Rocher, Christine Delire, Roland Séférian, Vivek K. Arora, Lars Nieradzik, Peter Anthoni, Wim Thiery, Marysa M. Laguë, Deborah Lawrence, and Min-Hui Lo
Biogeosciences, 17, 5615–5638, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We find a biogeophysically induced global cooling with strong carbon losses in a 20 million square kilometre idealized deforestation experiment performed by nine CMIP6 Earth system models. It takes many decades for the temperature signal to emerge, with non-local effects playing an important role. Despite a consistent experimental setup, models diverge substantially in their climate responses. This study offers unprecedented insights for understanding land use change effects in CMIP6 models.
Cited articles
Arora, V.: Land surface modelling in general circulation models: a
hydrological perspective, PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Melbourne, 1997.
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: A parameterization of leaf phenology for the
terrestrial ecosystem component of climate models, Glob. Chang. Biol., 11,
39–59, 2005.
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: Uncertainties in the 20th century carbon
budget associated with land use change, Glob. Change Biol., 16, 3327–3348,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02202.x, 2010.
Arora, V. K., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Curry, C. L., Denman, K. L.,
Zahariev, K., Flato, G. M., Scinocca, J. F., Merryfield, W. J., and Lee, W.
G.: The Effect of Terrestrial Photosynthesis Down Regulation on the
Twentieth-Century Carbon Budget Simulated with the CCCma Earth System Model,
J. Climate, 22, 6066–6088, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3037.1, 2009.
Arora, V. K., Seiler, C., Wang, L., and Kou-Giesbrecht, S.: Towards an ensemble-based evaluation of land surface models in light of uncertain forcings and observations, Biogeosciences, 20, 1313–1355, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, 2023.
Bartholomé, E. and Belward, A. S.: GLC2000: A new approach to global
land cover mapping from Earth Observation data, Int. J. Remote Sens., 26,
1959–1977, 2005.
Bartlett, P. A. and Verseghy, D. L.: Modified treatment of intercepted snow
improves the simulated forest albedo in the Canadian land surface scheme,
Hydrol. Process., 29, 3208–3226, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10431, 2015.
Bartlett, P. A., MacKay, M. D., and Verseghy, D. L.: Modified snow
algorithms in the Canadian land surface scheme: Model runs and sensitivity
analysis at three boreal forest stands, Atmos.-Ocean, 44, 207–222, 2006.
Beaudoin, A., Bernier, P. Y., Guindon, L., Villemaire, P., Guo, X. J.,
Stinson, G., Bergeron, T., Magnussen, S., and Hall, R. J.: Mapping attributes
of Canada's forests at moderate resolution through kNN and MODIS imagery,
Can. J. For. Res., 44, 521–532, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0401, 2014.
Betts, R. A.: Biogeophysical impacts of land use on present-day climate:
near-surface temperature change and radiative forcing, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 2,
39–51, https://doi.org/10.1006/asle.2001.0037, 2001.
Bjorkman, A. D., Myers-Smith, I. H., Elmendorf, S. C., et al.: Plant
functional trait change across a warming tundra biome, Nature, 562, 57–62,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0563-7, 2018.
Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Kergoat, L., and Oleson, K. W.: Landscapes as patches
of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem
models, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16, 1021,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001360, 2002.
Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Sitch, S., Vertenstein, M., and Oleson, K. W.: A
dynamic global vegetation model for use with climate models: Concepts and
description of simulated vegetation dynamics, Global Change Biol., 9,
1543–1566, 2003.
Bontemps, S., Herold, M., Kooistra, L., van Groenestijn, A., Hartley, A., Arino, O., Moreau, I., and Defourny, P.: Revisiting land cover observation to address the needs of the climate modeling community, Biogeosciences, 9, 2145–2157, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-2145-2012, 2012.
Di Gregorio, A.: Land Cover Classification System – Classification concepts
and user manual for Software version 2, FAO Environment and Natural
Resources Service Series, No. 8, Rome, 208 pp., 2005.
ESA: Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2. Tech. Rep.,
http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf, last access: August 2017.
Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Anderegg, W. R. L.,Christoffersen, B. O., Dietze, M. C., Farrior, C. E., Holm, J. A., Hurtt, G. C., Knox, R. G., Lawrence, P. J., Lichstein, J. W., Longo, M., Matheny, A. M., Medvigy, D., Muller-Landau, H. C., Powell, T. L., Serbin, S. P., Sato, H., Shuman, J. K., Smith, B., Trugman, A. T., Viskari, T., Verbeeck, H., Weng, E., Xu, C., Xu, X., Zhang, T., and Moorcroft P. R.: Vegetation
demographics in Earth System Models: A review of progress and priorities.
Global Change Biol., 24, 35–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13910, 2018.
Fox, D. L., Pau, S., Taylor, L., Strömberg, C. A. E., Osborne, C. P.,
Bradshaw, C., Conn, S., Beerling, D. J., and Still, C. J.: Climatic Controls on
C4 Grassland Distributions During the Neogene: A Model-Data Comparison,
Front. Ecol. Evol., 6, 147,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00147, 2018.
Fritz, S., See, L., McCallum, I., Schill, C., Obersteiner, M., van der
Velde, M., Boettcher, H., Havlík, P., and Achard, F.: Highlighting
continued uncertainty in global land cover maps for the user community,
Environ. Res. Lett., 6, 44005,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044005, 2011.
Georgievski, G. and Hagemann, S.: Characterizing uncertainties in the ESA-CCI
land cover map of the epoch 2010 and their impacts on MPI-ESM climate
simulations, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 137, 1587–1603,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-2675-2, 2019.
Gillis, M. D., Omule, A. Y., and Brierley, T.: Monitoring Canada's forests:
The National Forest Inventory, The Forestry Chronicle, 81, 214–221,
https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc81214-2, 2005.
Harris, I. C.: CRU JRA v2.1: A forcings dataset of gridded land surface
blend of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Japanese reanalysis (JRA) data;
Jan. 1901–Dec. 2019, Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit,
https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/10d2c73e5a7d46f4ada08b0a26302ef7 (last access: July 2022), 2020.
Hartley, A. J., MacBean, N., Georgievski, G., and Bontemps, S.: Uncertainty in
plant functional type distributions and its impact on land surface models,
Remote Sens. Environ., 203, 71–89,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.037, 2017.
Harder, P., Warren D. H., and Pomeroy, J. W.: Modeling the Snowpack Energy
Balance during Melt under Exposed Crop Stubble, J. Hydrometeorol., 19,
1191–1214, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-18-0039.1, 2018.
Hansen, M. C., DeFries, R. S., Townshend, J. R. G., Sohlberg, R., Dimiceli,
C., Carroll, M. L.: Towards an operational MODIS continuous field of percent
tree cover algorithm: Examples using AVHRR and MODIS data, Remote Sens.
Environ., 83, 303–319, 2002.
Hansen, M. C., Stehman, S. V., and Potapov, P. V.: Quantification of global
gross forest cover loss, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107, 8650–8655,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912668107, 2010.
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., and Townshend, J. R. G.: Highresolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change,
Science, 342, 850–853, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693, 2013.
Hengl, T., Mendes de Jesus, J., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Ruiperez Gonzalez, M.,
Kilibarda, M., Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X.,
Bauer-Marschallinger, B., Guevara, M. A., Vargas, R., MacMillan, R. A.,
Batjes, N. H., Leenaars, J. G. B., Ribeiro, E., Wheeler, I., Mantel, S., and
Kempen, B.: SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine
learning, PLOS ONE, 12, 1–40, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748,
2017.
Hermosilla, T., Wulder, M. A., White, J. C., Coops, N. C., and Hobart, G. W.:
Disturbance informed annual land cover classification maps of Canada's
forested ecosystems for a 29-year Landsat time series, Can. J. Remote.
Sens., 44, 67–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/07038992.2018.1437719, 2018.
Herold, M., Mayaux, P., Woodcock, C. E., BaESACCIni, A., and Schmullius, C.:
Some Challenges in Global Land Cover Mapping: An Assessment of Agreement and
Accuracy in Existing 1 km Datasets, Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 2538–2556,
2008.
Hopkinson, C., Chasmer, L., Lim, K., Treitz, P., and Creed, I.: Towards a
universal lidar canopy height indicator, Can. J. Remote Sens.,
32, 139–152, https://doi.org/10.5589/m06-006, 2006.
Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudre, N., Ogee, J., Polcher, J., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB1015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199, 2005.
Latifovic, R., Pouliot, D., and Olthof, I.: Circa 2010 Land Cover of Canada:
Local Optimization Methodology and Product Development, Remote Sens., 9,
1098, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9111098, 2017.
Latifovic, R. and Olthof, I.: Accuracy assessment using sub-pixel
fractional error matrices of global land cover products derived from
satellite data, Remote Sens. Environ., 90, 153–165, 2004.
Macander, M. J., Frost, G. V., Nelson, P. R., and Swingley, C. S.: ABoVE:
Tundra Plant Functional Type Continuous-Cover, North Slope, Alaska,
2010–2015, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA,
https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1830, 2020.
Mayaux, P., Eva, H., Gallego, J., Strahler, A. H., Herold, M., Agrawal, S.,
Naumov, S., De Miranda, E. E., Di Bella, C. M., Ordoyne, C., Kopin, Y., and Roy, P. S.:
Validation of the Global Land Cover 2000 Map, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote
Sens., 44, 1728–1739, 2006.
Melton, J.: Model code for the Canadian Land Surface Scheme Including
Biogeochemical Cycles (CLASSIC), [code],
https://cccma.gitlab.io/classic_pages/, last access: July
2022.
Melton, J. R. and Arora, V. K.: Competition between plant functional types in the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) v. 2.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 323–361, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-323-2016, 2016.
Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., Wisernig-Cojoc, E., Seiler, C., Fortier, M., Chan, E., and Teckentrup, L.: CLASSIC v1.0: the open-source community successor to the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) – Part 1: Model framework and site-level performance, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2825–2850, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2825-2020, 2020.
Meyer, G., Humphreys, E. R., Melton, J. R., Cannon, A. J., and Lafleur, P. M.: Simulating shrubs and their energy and carbon dioxide fluxes in Canada's Low Arctic with the Canadian Land Surface Scheme Including Biogeochemical Cycles (CLASSIC), Biogeosciences, 18, 3263–3283, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3263-2021, 2021.
Moody, E. G., King, M. D., Schaaf, C. B., Hall, D. K., and Platnick, S.:
Northern Hemisphere five-year average (2000–2004) spectral albedos of
surfaces in the presence of snow: statistics computed from Terra MODIS land
products, Remote Sens. Environ., 111, 337–345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.03.026, 2007.
Ottlé, C., Lescure, J., Maignan, F., Poulter, B., Wang, T., and Delbart, N.: Use of various remote sensing land cover products for plant functional type mapping over Siberia, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 331–348, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-331-2013, 2013.
Pielke, R. A., Avissar, R., Raupach, M., Dolman, A. J., Zeng, X., and Denning,
S.: Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystem: influence
on weather and climate, Global Change Biol., 4, 461–475, 1998.
Poulter, B., Ciais, P., Hodson, E., Lischke, H., Maignan, F., Plummer, S., and Zimmermann, N. E.: Plant functional type mapping for earth system models, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 993–1010, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-993-2011, 2011.
Poulter, B., MacBean, N., Hartley, A., Khlystova, I., Arino, O., Betts, R.,
Bontemps, S., Boettcher, M., Brockmann, C., Defourny, P., Hagemann, S.,
Herold, M., Kirches, G., Lamarche, C., Lederer, D., Ottlé, C., Peters,
M., and Peylin, P.: Plant functional type classification for earth system
models: results from the European Space Agency's Land Cover Climate Change
Initiative, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2315–2328,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2315-2015, 2015.
Pomeroy, J. W., Gray, D. M., and Landine, P. G.: The Prairie Blowing Snow
Model: Characteristics, validation, operation, J. Hydrol., 144, 165–192,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90171-5, 1993.
Schaaf, C. B., Gao, F., Strahler, A. H., Lucht, W., Li, X., Tsang, T., Strugnell, N. C., Zhang, X., Jin, Y., Muller, J. P., Lewis, P., Barnsley, M., Hobson, P., Disney, M., Roberts, G., Dunderdale, M., Doll, C., d’Entremont, R. P., Hu, B., Liang, S., Privette, J. F., and Roy, D.: First operational BRDF, albedo nadir reflectance
products from MODIS, Remote Sens. Environ., 83, 135–148,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00091-3, 2002.
Scheiter, S., Langan, L., and Higgins, S. I.: Next-generation dynamic global
vegetation models: learning from community ecology, New Phytol., 198,
957–969, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12210, 2013.
Seiler, C., Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., and Wang, L.: CLASSIC v1.0: the open-source community successor to the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) – Part 2: Global benchmarking, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021.
Shangguan, W., Hengl, T., Mendes de Jesus, J., Yuan, H., and Dai, Y.:
Mapping the global depth to bedrock for land surface modeling, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Syst., 9, 65–88, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000686, 2017.
Smith, T. M., Shugart, H. H., and Woodward, F. I.: Plant functional types:
their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 369 pp., 1997.
Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., and Sykes, M. T. : Representation of vegetation
dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: Comparing two
contrasting approaches within European climate space, Global Ecol. Biogeo., 10, 621–637, 2001.
Sterling, S. M., Ducharne, A., and Polcher, J.: The impact of global land-cover
change on the terrestrial water cycle, Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 385–390,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1690, 2013.
Still, C. J. and Berry, J. A.: Global distribution of C3 and C4 vegetation:
Carbon cycle implications, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, 1006,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001807, 2003.
Sun, W., Liang, S., Xu, G., Fang, H., and Dickinson, R. E.: Mapping plant
functional types from MODIS data using multisource evidential reasoning,
Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 1010–1024,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.07.022, 2008.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019.
Tsendbazar, N. E., de Bruin, S., Mora, B., Schouten, L., and Herold, M.:
Comparative assessment of thematic accuracy of GLC maps for specific
applications using existing reference data, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs.
Geoinf., 44, 124–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.08.009, 2016.
Wang, A., Price, D. T., and Arora, V. K.: Estimating changes in global
vegetation cover (1850–2100) for use in climate models, Global Biogeochem.
Cy., 20, GB3028, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002514, 2006.
Wang, L., MacKay, M., Brown, R., Bartlett, P., Harvey, R., and Langlois, A.:
Application of satellite data for evaluating the cold climate performance of
the Canadian Regional Climate model over Québec, Canada, J.
Hydrometeorol., 15, 614–630, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-086.1, 2014.
Wang, L., Cole, J. N. S., Bartlett, P., Verseghy, D., Derksen, C., Brown, R.,
and von Salzen, K.: Investigating the spread in surface albedo for snow-covered
forests in CMIP5 models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 1104–1119,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023824, 2016.
Wang, L., Bartlett, P., Chan, E., and Xiao, M.: Mapping of Plant Functional
Type from Satellite-Derived Land Cover Datasets for Climate Models, In
Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium, Valencia, Spain, 22–27, https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8518046, 2018.
Wang, L., Bartlett, P., Pouliot, D., Chan, E., Lamarche, C., Wulder, M. A.,
Defourny, P., and Brady, M.: Comparison and Assessment of Regional and Global
Land Cover Datasets for Use in CLASS over Canada, Remote Sens., 11,
2286, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11192286, 2019.
Wulder, M. A. and Nelson, T.: EOSD land cover classification legend report:
Version 2, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific
Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 13 January 2003,
83 pp., http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/eosd/cover/EOSD_Legend_Report-v2.pdf (last access: June 2021), 2003.
Wulder, M. A., Bater, C. W., Coops, N. C., Hilker, T., and White, J. C.: The
role of LiDAR in sustainable forest management, The Forestry Chronicle, 84
807–826, 2008.
Wulder, M. A., White, J. C., Bater, C. W., Coops, N. C., Hopkinson, C., and Chen,
G.: Lidar plots – a new large-area data collection option: context,
concepts, and case study, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 38, 600–618,
https://doi.org/10.5589/m12-049, 2012.
Verseghy, D. L.: CLASS – A Canadian Land Surface Scheme for GCMs, I. Soil
model, Int. J. Climatol., 11, 111–133,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3370110202, 1991.
Verseghy, D., McFarlane, N., and Lazare, M.: Class – A Canadian land surface
scheme for GCMs, II: Vegetation model and coupled runs, Int. J. Climatol.,
13, 347–370, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3370130402, 1993.
Zakharova, L., Meyer, K. M., and Seifan, M.: Trait-based modelling in ecology: A
review of two decades of research, Ecol. Model., 407, 108703,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.05.008, 2019.
Short summary
Plant functional types (PFTs) are groups of plant species used to represent vegetation distribution in land surface models. There are large uncertainties associated with existing methods for mapping land cover datasets to PFTs. This study demonstrates how fine-resolution tree cover fraction and land cover datasets can be used to inform the PFT mapping process and reduce the uncertainties. The proposed largely objective method makes it easier to implement new land cover products in models.
Plant functional types (PFTs) are groups of plant species used to represent vegetation...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint