Articles | Volume 20, issue 15
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3301-2023
© 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-20-3301-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
11 Aug 2023
Research article |
| 11 Aug 2023
| 11 Aug 2023
Scale variance in the carbon dynamics of fragmented, mixed-use landscapes estimated using model–data fusion
David T. Milodowski
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
National Centre for Earth Observations, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
T. Luke Smallman
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
National Centre for Earth Observations, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Mathew Williams
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
National Centre for Earth Observations, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Related authors
Anna T. Schackow, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, David T. Milodowski, Jean-Marc Limousin, and Ana Bastos
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4884, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4884, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Plants regulate how much water they lose and how much carbon they take in, but rising heat and dryness make this balance harder. We studied how water movement inside plant stems changes during the day and relates to dryness in the air and soil. By analyzing these daily patterns, we identified signals of stress that could be tracked not only with sensors in plants but also from satellites, offering new ways to monitor global vegetation health.
Mathew Williams, David T. Milodowski, T. Luke Smallman, Kyle G. Dexter, Gabi C. Hegerl, Iain M. McNicol, Michael O'Sullivan, Carla M. Roesch, Casey M. Ryan, Stephen Sitch, and Aude Valade
Biogeosciences, 22, 1597–1614, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1597-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1597-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Southern African woodlands are important in both regional and global carbon cycles. A new carbon analysis created by combining satellite data with ecosystem modelling shows that the region has a neutral C balance overall but with important spatial variations. Patterns of biomass and C balance across the region are the outcome of climate controls on production and vegetation–fire interactions, which determine the mortality of vegetation and spatial variations in vegetation function.
Thomas Luke Smallman, David Thomas Milodowski, Eráclito Sousa Neto, Gerbrand Koren, Jean Ometto, and Mathew Williams
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1191–1237, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1191-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1191-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study provides a novel assessment of model parameter, structure and climate change scenario uncertainty contribution to future predictions of the Brazilian terrestrial carbon stocks to 2100. We calibrated (2001–2017) five models of the terrestrial C cycle of varied structure. The calibrated models were then projected to 2100 under multiple climate change scenarios. Parameter uncertainty dominates overall uncertainty, being ~ 40 times that of either model structure or climate change scenario.
Anna T. Schackow, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, David T. Milodowski, Jean-Marc Limousin, and Ana Bastos
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4884, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4884, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Plants regulate how much water they lose and how much carbon they take in, but rising heat and dryness make this balance harder. We studied how water movement inside plant stems changes during the day and relates to dryness in the air and soil. By analyzing these daily patterns, we identified signals of stress that could be tracked not only with sensors in plants but also from satellites, offering new ways to monitor global vegetation health.
Liang Feng, Paul Palmer, Luke Smallman, Jingfeng Xiao, Paulo Cristofanelli, Ove Hermansen, John Lee, Casper Labuschagne, Simonetta Montaguti, Steffen Noe, Stephen Platt, Xinrong Ren, Martin Steinbacher, and Irene Xueref-Remy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1793, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1793, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
2023 saw an unexpectedly high global atmospheric CO2 growth. Satellite data reveal a role for increased emissions over the tropics. Larger emissions over eastern Brazil can be explained by warmer temperatures, while changes in rainfall and soil moisture play more of a role in emission increases elsewhere in the tropics.
Wolfgang Knorr, Matthew Williams, Tea Thum, Thomas Kaminski, Michael Voßbeck, Marko Scholze, Tristan Quaife, T. Luke Smallman, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Tim Green, Sönke Zaehle, Mika Aurela, Alexandre Bouvet, Emanuel Bueechi, Wouter Dorigo, Tarek S. El-Madany, Mirco Migliavacca, Marika Honkanen, Yann H. Kerr, Anna Kontu, Juha Lemmetyinen, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Arnaud Mialon, Tuuli Miinalainen, Gaétan Pique, Amanda Ojasalo, Shaun Quegan, Peter J. Rayner, Pablo Reyes-Muñoz, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Mike Schwank, Jochem Verrelst, Songyan Zhu, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Matthias Drusch
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2137–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
When it comes to climate change, the land surface is where the vast majority of impacts happen. The task of monitoring those impacts across the globe is formidable and must necessarily rely on satellites – at a significant cost: the measurements are only indirect and require comprehensive physical understanding. We have created a comprehensive modelling system that we offer to the research community to explore how satellite data can be better exploited to help us capture the changes that happen on our lands.
Mathew Williams, David T. Milodowski, T. Luke Smallman, Kyle G. Dexter, Gabi C. Hegerl, Iain M. McNicol, Michael O'Sullivan, Carla M. Roesch, Casey M. Ryan, Stephen Sitch, and Aude Valade
Biogeosciences, 22, 1597–1614, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1597-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1597-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Southern African woodlands are important in both regional and global carbon cycles. A new carbon analysis created by combining satellite data with ecosystem modelling shows that the region has a neutral C balance overall but with important spatial variations. Patterns of biomass and C balance across the region are the outcome of climate controls on production and vegetation–fire interactions, which determine the mortality of vegetation and spatial variations in vegetation function.
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.
Marcos B. Sanches, Manoel Cardoso, Celso von Randow, Chris Jones, and Mathew Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-942, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-942, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines South America's role in the global carbon cycle using flux and stock analyses from CMIP6 Earth System Models. We discuss the continent’s relevance, model-observation agreement, and the impacts of dry and wet years on major biomes. Additionally, we assess model results indicating that parts of South America could shift from carbon sinks to emitters, significantly affecting the global carbon balance.
Xiaoran Zhu, Dong Chen, Maruko Kogure, Elizabeth Hoy, Logan T. Berner, Amy L. Breen, Abhishek Chatterjee, Scott J. Davidson, Gerald V. Frost, Teresa N. Hollingsworth, Go Iwahana, Randi R. Jandt, Anja N. Kade, Tatiana V. Loboda, Matt J. Macander, Michelle Mack, Charles E. Miller, Eric A. Miller, Susan M. Natali, Martha K. Raynolds, Adrian V. Rocha, Shiro Tsuyuzaki, Craig E. Tweedie, Donald A. Walker, Mathew Williams, Xin Xu, Yingtong Zhang, Nancy French, and Scott Goetz
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3687–3703, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3687-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic tundra is experiencing widespread physical and biological changes, largely in response to warming, yet scientific understanding of tundra ecology and change remains limited due to relatively limited accessibility and studies compared to other terrestrial biomes. To support synthesis research and inform future studies, we created the Synthesized Alaskan Tundra Field Dataset (SATFiD), which brings together field datasets and includes vegetation, active-layer, and fire properties.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets 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 (1750–2023). 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.
Luana S. Basso, Chris Wilson, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Graciela Tejada, Henrique L. G. Cassol, Egídio Arai, Mathew Williams, T. Luke Smallman, Wouter Peters, Stijn Naus, John B. Miller, and Manuel Gloor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9685–9723, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9685-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9685-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Amazon’s carbon balance may have changed due to forest degradation, deforestation and warmer climate. We used an atmospheric model and atmospheric CO2 observations to quantify Amazonian carbon emissions (2010–2018). The region was a small carbon source to the atmosphere, mostly due to fire emissions. Forest uptake compensated for ~ 50 % of the fire emissions, meaning that the remaining forest is still a small carbon sink. We found no clear evidence of weakening carbon uptake over the period.
Alexander J. Norton, A. Anthony Bloom, Nicholas C. Parazoo, Paul A. Levine, Shuang Ma, Renato K. Braghiere, and T. Luke Smallman
Biogeosciences, 20, 2455–2484, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2455-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2455-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores how the representation of leaf phenology affects our ability to predict changes to the carbon balance of land ecosystems. We calibrate a new leaf phenology model against a diverse range of observations at six forest sites, showing that it improves the predictive capability of the processes underlying the ecosystem carbon balance. We then show how changes in temperature and rainfall affect the ecosystem carbon balance with this new model.
Vasileios Myrgiotis, Thomas Luke Smallman, and Mathew Williams
Biogeosciences, 19, 4147–4170, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study shows that livestock grazing and grass cutting can determine whether a grassland is adding (source) or removing (sink) carbon (C) to/from the atmosphere. The annual C balance of 1855 managed grassland fields in Great Britain was quantified for 2017–2018 using process modelling and earth observation data. The examined fields were, on average, small C sinks, but the summer drought of 2018 led to a 9-fold increase in the number of fields that became C sources in 2018 compared to 2017.
Yan Yang, A. Anthony Bloom, Shuang Ma, Paul Levine, Alexander Norton, Nicholas C. Parazoo, John T. Reager, John Worden, Gregory R. Quetin, T. Luke Smallman, Mathew Williams, Liang Xu, and Sassan Saatchi
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1789–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1789-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1789-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Global carbon and water have large uncertainties that are hard to quantify in current regional and global models. Field observations provide opportunities for better calibration and validation of current modeling of carbon and water. With the unique structure of CARDAMOM, we have utilized the data assimilation capability and designed the benchmarking framework by using field observations in modeling. Results show that data assimilation improves model performance in different aspects.
Stephanie G. Stettz, Nicholas C. Parazoo, A. Anthony Bloom, Peter D. Blanken, David R. Bowling, Sean P. Burns, Cédric Bacour, Fabienne Maignan, Brett Raczka, Alexander J. Norton, Ian Baker, Mathew Williams, Mingjie Shi, Yongguang Zhang, and Bo Qiu
Biogeosciences, 19, 541–558, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-541-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-541-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainty in the response of photosynthesis to temperature poses a major challenge to predicting the response of forests to climate change. In this paper, we study how photosynthesis in a mountainous evergreen forest is limited by temperature. This study highlights that cold temperature is a key factor that controls spring photosynthesis. Including the cold-temperature limitation in an ecosystem model improved its ability to simulate spring photosynthesis.
Thomas Luke Smallman, David Thomas Milodowski, Eráclito Sousa Neto, Gerbrand Koren, Jean Ometto, and Mathew Williams
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1191–1237, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1191-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1191-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study provides a novel assessment of model parameter, structure and climate change scenario uncertainty contribution to future predictions of the Brazilian terrestrial carbon stocks to 2100. We calibrated (2001–2017) five models of the terrestrial C cycle of varied structure. The calibrated models were then projected to 2100 under multiple climate change scenarios. Parameter uncertainty dominates overall uncertainty, being ~ 40 times that of either model structure or climate change scenario.
Caroline A. Famiglietti, T. Luke Smallman, Paul A. Levine, Sophie Flack-Prain, Gregory R. Quetin, Victoria Meyer, Nicholas C. Parazoo, Stephanie G. Stettz, Yan Yang, Damien Bonal, A. Anthony Bloom, Mathew Williams, and Alexandra G. Konings
Biogeosciences, 18, 2727–2754, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2727-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2727-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Model uncertainty dominates the spread in terrestrial carbon cycle predictions. Efforts to reduce it typically involve adding processes, thereby increasing model complexity. However, if and how model performance scales with complexity is unclear. Using a suite of 16 structurally distinct carbon cycle models, we find that increased complexity only improves skill if parameters are adequately informed. Otherwise, it can degrade skill, and an intermediate-complexity model is optimal.
A. Anthony Bloom, Kevin W. Bowman, Junjie Liu, Alexandra G. Konings, John R. Worden, Nicholas C. Parazoo, Victoria Meyer, John T. Reager, Helen M. Worden, Zhe Jiang, Gregory R. Quetin, T. Luke Smallman, Jean-François Exbrayat, Yi Yin, Sassan S. Saatchi, Mathew Williams, and David S. Schimel
Biogeosciences, 17, 6393–6422, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6393-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6393-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We use a model of the 2001–2015 tropical land carbon cycle, with satellite measurements of land and atmospheric carbon, to disentangle lagged and concurrent effects (due to past and concurrent meteorological events, respectively) on annual land–atmosphere carbon exchanges. The variability of lagged effects explains most 2001–2015 inter-annual carbon flux variations. We conclude that concurrent and lagged effects need to be accurately resolved to better predict the world's land carbon sink.
Cited articles
Beven, K.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007, 2006. a
Bloom, A. A., Exbrayat, J.-F., van der Velde, I. R., Feng, L., and Williams, M.: The decadal state of the terrestrial carbon cycle: Global retrievals of terrestrial carbon allocation, pools, and residence times, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 1285–1290, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515160113, 2016. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k
Bonan, G. B. and Doney, S. C.: Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: The challenge to predict life in Earth system models, Science, 359, eaam8328, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8328, 2018. a
Brinck, K., Fischer, R., Groeneveld, J., Lehmann, S., Dantas De Paula, M., Pütz, S., Sexton, J. O., Song, D., and Huth, A.: High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and its impact on the global carbon cycle, Nat. Commun., 8, 14855, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14855, 2017. a, b
Butler, E. E., Datta, A., Flores-Moreno, H., Chen, M., Wythers, K. R., Fazayeli, F., Banerjee, A., Atkin, O. K., Kattge, J., Amiaud, B., Blonder, B., Boenisch, G., Bond-Lamberty, B., Brown, K. A., Byun, C., Campetella, G., Cerabolini, B. E. L., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Craine, J. M., Craven, D., de Vries, F. T., Díaz, S., Domingues, T. F., Forey, E., González-Melo, A., Gross, N., Han, W., Hattingh, W. N., Hickler, T., Jansen, S., Kramer, K., Kraft, N. J. B., Kurokawa, H., Laughlin, D. C., Meir, P., Minden, V., Niinemets, Ü., Onoda, Y., Peñuelas, J., Read, Q., Sack, L., Schamp, B., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Spasojevic, M. J., Sosinski, E., Thornton, P. E., Valladares, F., van Bodegom, P. M., Williams, M., Wirth, C., and Reich, P. B.: Mapping local and global variability in plant trait distributions, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, E10937–E10946, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708984114, 2017. a, b
CRU (University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit; Harris, I. C.): CRU JRA v1.1: A forcings dataset of gridded land surface blend of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Japanese reanalysis (JRA) data; Jan.1901–Dec.2017, Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, https://doi.org/10.5285/13f3635174794bb98cf8ac4b0ee8f4ed, 2019. a
Exbrayat, J.-F., Bloom, A. A., Carvalhais, N., Fischer, R., Huth, A., MacBean, N., and Williams, M.: Understanding the Land Carbon Cycle with Space Data: Current Status and Prospects, Surv. Geophys., 40, 735–755, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-019-09506-2, 2019. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b, c, d, e, f
Heiskanen, J., Rautiainen, M., Stenberg, P., Mõttus, M., Vesanto, V.-H., Korhonen, L., and Majasalmi, T.: Seasonal variation in MODIS LAI for a boreal forest area in Finland, Remote Sens. Environ., 126, 104–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.08.001, 2012. a
Famiglietti, C. A., Smallman, T. L., Levine, P. A., Flack-Prain, S., Quetin, G. R., Meyer, V., Parazoo, N. C., Stettz, S. G., Yang, Y., Bonal, D., Bloom, A. A., Williams, M., and Konings, A. G.: Optimal model complexity for terrestrial carbon cycle prediction, Biogeosciences, 18, 2727–2754, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2727-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f
Fisher, R. A. and Koven, C. D.: Perspectives on the Future of Land Surface Models and the Challenges of Representing Complex Terrestrial Systems, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2018MS001453, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001453, 2020. a, b
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Arneth, A., Arora, V., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Benoit-Cattin, A., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Bultan, S., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Evans, W., Florentie, L., Forster, P. M., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Harris, I., Hartung, K., Haverd, V., Houghton, R. A., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kitidis, V., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Marland, G., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Smith, A. J. P., Sutton, A. J., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G., Vuichard, N., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Watson, A. J., Willis, D., Wiltshire, A. J., Yuan, W., Yue, X., and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2020, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020. a
Fuster, B., Sánchez-Zapero, J., Camacho, F., García-Santos, V., Verger, A., Lacaze, R., Weiss, M., Baret, F., and Smets, B.: Quality Assessment of PROBA-V LAI, fAPAR and fCOVER Collection 300 m Products of Copernicus Global Land Service, Remote Sens., 12, 1017, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061017, 2020. a
Gatti, L. V., Basso, L. S., Miller, J. B., Gloor, M., Gatti Domingues, L., Cassol, H. L. G., Tejada, G., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Nobre, C., Peters, W., Marani, L., Arai, E., Sanches, A. H., Corrêa, S. M., Anderson, L., Von Randow, C., Correia, C. S. C., Crispim, S. P., and Neves, R. A. L.: Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change, Nature, 595, 388–393, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6, 2021. a
Giglio, L., Boschetti, L., Roy, D. P., Humber, M. L., and Justice, C. O.: The Collection 6 MODIS burned area mapping algorithm and product, Remote Sens. Environ., 217, 72–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.08.005, 2018. a
Grassi, G., House, J., Dentener, F., Federici, S., den Elzen, M., and Penman, J.: The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 220–226, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3227, 2017. a
Greenwood, S., Ruiz-Benito, P., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Lloret, F., Kitzberger, T., Allen, C. D., Fensham, R., Laughlin, D. C., Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Kraft, N. J. B., and Jump, A. S.: Tree mortality across biomes is promoted by drought intensity, lower wood density and higher specific leaf area, Ecol. Lett., 20, 539–553, https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12748, 2017. a
Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M. C., Herold, M., Houghton, R. A., Potapov, P. V., Suarez, D. R., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S. S., Slay, C. M., Turubanova, S. A., and Tyukavina, A.: Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 11, 234–240, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6, 2021. a
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.: High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change, Science, 342, 850–853, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693, 2013. a
Hurlbert, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Davin, E., Johnson, F. X., Mena, C. F., Morton, J., Myeong, S., Viner, D., Warner, K., Wreford, A., Zakieldeen, S., and Zommers, Z.: Risk Management and Decision making in Relation to Sustainable Development, in: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, edited by: Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey, E., Luz, S., Neogi, S., Pathak, M., Petzold, J., Portugal Pereira, J., Vyas, P., Huntley, E., Kissick, K., Belkacemi, M., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.009, 2019. a
IPCC: Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, edited by: Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P., and Federici, S., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Switzerland, ISBN 978-4-88788-232-4, 2019. a, b
Jenkins, G. J., Perry, M. C., and Prior, M. J.: The climate of the UK and recent trends, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, ISBN 978-1-906360-05-4, 2009. a
Jensen, J. L. W. V.: Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes, Acta Math., 30, 175–193, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02418571, 1906. a
Jones, C. D. and Friedlingstein, P.: Quantifying process-level uncertainty contributions to TCRE and carbon budgets for meeting Paris Agreement climate targets, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 074019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab858a, 2020. a
Kaminski, T., Rayner, P. J., Voßbeck, M., Scholze, M., and Koffi, E.: Observing the continental-scale carbon balance: assessment of sampling complementarity and redundancy in a terrestrial assimilation system by means of quantitative network design, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7867–7879, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7867-2012, 2012. a, b
Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., et al.: TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access, Glob. Change Biol., 26, 119–188, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904, 2020. a
Kondo, M., Patra, P. K., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Poulter, B., Chevallier, F., Ciais, P., Canadell, J. G., Bastos, A., Lauerwald, R., Calle, L., Ichii, K., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Kautz, M., Law, R. M., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Maki, T., Nakamura, T., Peylin, P., Rödenbeck, C., Zhuravlev, R., Saeki, T., Tian, H., Zhu, D., and Ziehn, T.: State of the science in reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches for terrestrial CO2 budget, Glob. Change Biols., 26, 1068–1084, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917, 2020. a
Kuppel, S., Peylin, P., Maignan, F., Chevallier, F., Kiely, G., Montagnani, L., and Cescatti, A.: Model–data fusion across ecosystems: from multisite optimizations to global simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2581–2597, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2581-2014, 2014. a, b
Levy, P., Clement, R., Cowan, N., Keane, B., Myrgiotis, V., van Oijen, M., Smallman, T. L., Toet, S., and Williams, M.: Challenges in Scaling Up Greenhouse Gas Fluxes: Experience From the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Feedbacks Program, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 127, e2021JG006743, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006743, 2022. a, b, c
López-Blanco, E., Exbrayat, J.-F., Lund, M., Christensen, T. R., Tamstorf, M. P., Slevin, D., Hugelius, G., Bloom, A. A., and Williams, M.: Evaluation of terrestrial pan-Arctic carbon cycling using a data-assimilation system, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 233–255, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-233-2019, 2019. a, b
Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fischer, J.: Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis, Island Press, 2013. a
Luo, Y., Ogle, K., Tucker, C., Fei, S., Gao, C., LaDeau, S., Clark, J. S., and Schimel, D. S.: Ecological forecasting and data assimilation in a data-rich era, Ecol. Appl., 21, 1429–1442, https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1275.1, 2011. a, b
Luo, Y., Keenan, T. F., and Smith, M.: Predictability of the terrestrial carbon cycle, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 1737–1751, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12766, 2015. a, b
Lovenduski, N. S. and Bonan, G. B.: Reducing uncertainty in projections of terrestrial carbon uptake, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 044020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa66b8, 2017. a
MacBean, N., Maignan, F., Bacour, C., Lewis, P., Peylin, P., Guanter, L., Köhler, P., Gómez-Dans, J., and Disney, M.: Strong constraint on modelled global carbon uptake using solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence data, Sci. Rep., 8, 1973, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20024-w, 2018. a
Matricardi, E. A. T., Skole, D. L., Costa, O. B., Pedlowski, M. A., Samek, J. H., and Miguel, E. P.: Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, Science, 369, 1378–1382, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3021, 2020. a, b
McGlynn, E., Li, S., Berger, M. F., Amend, M., and Harper, K. L.: Addressing uncertainty and bias in land use, land use change, and forestry greenhouse gas inventories, Climatic Change, 170, 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03254-2, 2022. a
Milodowski, D. T., Smallman, T. L., and Williams, M.: CARDAMOM driving data and C-cycle model outputs to accompany “Scale-variance in the carbon dynamics of fragmented, mixed-use landscapes estimated using Model-Data Fusion”, 2014–2019, Global Change Institute, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh [data set], https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/3843, 2023. a
Milodowski, D. T., Smallman, T. L., and Williams, M.: MilodowskI_etal_2023_Biogeosciences_scale_variance: v1.0.0 publication code archive, available on registration, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8146687, 2023. a
Montzka, C., Moradkhani, H., Weihermüller, L., Franssen, H.-J. H., Canty, M., and Vereecken, H.: Hydraulic parameter estimation by remotely-sensed top soil moisture observations with the particle filter, J. Hydrol., 399, 410–421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.01.020, 2011. a
Myrgiotis, V., Blei, E., Clement, R., Jones, S. K., Keane, B., Lee, M. A., Levy, P. E., Rees, R. M., Skiba, U. M., Smallman, T. L., Toet, S., and Williams, M.: A model-data fusion approach to analyse carbon dynamics in managed grasslands, Agr. Syst., 184, 102907, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102907, 2020. a, b
Myrgiotis, V., Smallman, T. L., and Williams, M.: The carbon budget of the managed grasslands of Great Britain – informed by earth observations, Biogeosciences, 19, 4147–4170, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4147-2022, 2022. a, b, c
Niu, S., Luo, Y., Dietze, M. C., Keenan, T. F., Shi, Z., Li, J., and Iii, F. S. C.: The role of data assimilation in predictive ecology, Ecosphere, 5, art65, https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00273.1, 2014. a
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
Peylin, P., Bacour, C., MacBean, N., Leonard, S., Rayner, P., Kuppel, S., Koffi, E., Kane, A., Maignan, F., Chevallier, F., Ciais, P., and Prunet, P.: A new stepwise carbon cycle data assimilation system using multiple data streams to constrain the simulated land surface carbon cycle, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3321–3346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3321-2016, 2016. a, b
Pinnington, E., Quaife, T., Lawless, A., Williams, K., Arkebauer, T., and Scoby, D.: The Land Variational Ensemble Data Assimilation Framework: LAVENDAR v1.0.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 55–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-55-2020, 2020. a
Poggio, L., de Sousa, L. M., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E., and Rossiter, D.: SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty, SOIL, 7, 217–240, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-217-2021, 2021. a
Reich, P. B., Rich, R. L., Lu, X., Wang, Y.-P., and Oleksyn, J.: Biogeographic variation in evergreen conifer needle longevity and impacts on boreal forest carbon cycle projections, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 13703–13708, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216054110, 2014. a
Revill, A., Myrgiotis, V., Florence, A., Hoad, S., Rees, R., MacArthur, A., and Williams, M.: Combining Process Modelling and LAI Observations to Diagnose Winter Wheat Nitrogen Status and Forecast Yield, Agronomy, 11, 314, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020314, 2021. a, b, c
Rowland, C. S., Morton, R. D., Carrasco, L., McShane, G., O'Neil, A. W., and Wood, C. M.: Land Cover Map 2015 (25m raster, GB), NERC Environmental Information Data Centre [data set],
https://doi.org/10.5285/bb15e200-9349-403c-bda9-b430093807c7, 2017 a, b, c
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, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019576108, 2011. a
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. a
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019. a, b, c, d, e, f
Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P. E., Lomas, M., Piao, S. L., Betts, R., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Prentice, I. C., and Woodward, F. I.: Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), Glob. Change Biol., 14, 2015–2039, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01626.x, 2008. a
Smallman, T. L. and Williams, M.: Description and validation of an intermediate complexity model for ecosystem photosynthesis and evapotranspiration: ACM-GPP-ETv1, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2227–2253, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2227-2019, 2019. a, b
Smallman, T. L., Exbrayat, J.-F., Mencuccini, M., Bloom, A. A., and Williams, M.: Assimilation of repeated woody biomass observations constrains decadal ecosystem carbon cycle uncertainty in aggrading forests, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 122, 528–545, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003520, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Smallman, T. L., Milodowski, D. T., Neto, E. S., Koren, G., Ometto, J., and Williams, M.: Parameter uncertainty dominates C-cycle forecast errors over most of Brazil for the 21st century, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1191–1237, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1191-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p
Smallman, T. L., Milodowski, D. T., and Williams, M.: From Ecosystem Observation to Environmental Decision-Making: Model-Data Fusion as an Operational Tool, Front. For. Glob. Change, 4, 818661, https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.818661, 2022. a, b, c, d
Smith, M. J., Purves, D. W., Vanderwel, M. C., Lyutsarev, V., and Emmott, S.: The climate dependence of the terrestrial carbon cycle, including parameter and structural uncertainties, Biogeosciences, 10, 583–606, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-583-2013, 2013. a, b, c
Souza, C. M., Z. Shimbo, J., Rosa, M. R., Parente, L. L., A. Alencar, A., Rudorff, B. F. T., Hasenack, H., Matsumoto, M., G. Ferreira, L., Souza-Filho, P. W. M., de Oliveira, S. W., Rocha, W. F., Fonseca, A. V., Marques, C. B., Diniz, C. G., Costa, D., Monteiro, D., Rosa, E. R., Vélez-Martin, E., Weber, E. J., Lenti, F. E. B., Paternost, F. F., Pareyn, F. G. C., Siqueira, J. V., Viera, J. L., Neto, L. C. F., Saraiva, M. M., Sales, M. H., Salgado, M. P. G., Vasconcelos, R., Galano, S., Mesquita, V. V., and Azevedo, T.: Reconstructing Three Decades of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat Archive and Earth Engine, Remote Sens., 12, 2735, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172735, 2020. a
Spadavecchia, L., Williams, M., and Law, B. E.: Uncertainty in predictions of forest carbon dynamics: separating driver error from model error, Ecol. Appl., 21, 1506–1522, https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1183.1, 2011. a
Stoy, P. C., Williams, M., Disney, M., Prieto-Blanco, A., Huntley, B., Baxter, R., and Lewis, P.: Upscaling as ecological information transfer: a simple framework with application to Arctic ecosystem carbon exchange, Landscape Ecol., 24, 971–986, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9367-3, 2009. a
Sus, O., Williams, M., Bernhofer, C., Béziat, P., Buchmann, N., Ceschia, E., Doherty, R., Eugster, W., Grünwald, T., Kutsch, W., Smith, P., and Wattenbach, M.: A linked carbon cycle and crop developmental model: Description and evaluation against measurements of carbon fluxes and carbon stocks at several European agricultural sites, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 139, 402–418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.06.012, 2010. a
Tanneberger, F., Moen, A., Joosten, H., and Nilsen, N.: The peatland map of Europe, Mires Peat, 19, 22, https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264, 2017. a
Turner, M. G., Calder, W. J., Cumming, G. S., Hughes, T. P., Jentsch, A., LaDeau, S. L., Lenton, T. M., Shuman, B. N., Turetsky, M. R., Ratajczak, Z., Williams, J. W., Williams, A. P., and Carpenter, S. R.: Climate change, ecosystems and abrupt change: science priorities, Roy. Soc., 375, 20190105, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0105, 2020. a
UNFCCC: Glasgow Climate Pact, Report No. FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/L.16,
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_L16_adv.pdf (last access: 4 July 2023), 2021. a
Van Bodegom, P. M., Douma, J. C., Witte, J. P. M., Ordoñez, J. C., Bartholomeus, R. P., and Aerts, R.: Going beyond limitations of plant functional types when predicting global ecosystem–atmosphere fluxes: exploring the merits of traits-based approaches, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 21, 625–636, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00717.x, 2012. a
White, E. D., Rigby, M., Lunt, M. F., Smallman, T. L., Comyn-Platt, E., Manning, A. J., Ganesan, A. L., O'Doherty, S., Stavert, A. R., Stanley, K., Williams, M., Levy, P., Ramonet, M., Forster, G. L., Manning, A. C., and Palmer, P. I.: Quantifying the UK's carbon dioxide flux: an atmospheric inverse modelling approach using a regional measurement network, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4345–4365, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4345-2019, 2019. a, b, c
Williams, M., Schwarz, P. A., Law, B. E., Irvine, J., and Kurpius, M. R.: An improved analysis of forest carbon dynamics using data assimilation, Glob. Change Biol., 11, 89–105, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00891.x, 2005. a, b
Yin, Y., Bloom, A. A., Worden, J., Saatchi, S., Yang, Y., Williams, M., Liu, J., Jiang, Z., Worden, H., Bowman, K., Frankenberg, C., and Schimel, D.: Fire decline in dry tropical ecosystems enhances decadal land carbon sink, Nat. Commun., 11, 1900, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15852-2, 2020. a, b
Zhao, Y., Chen, X., Smallman, T. L. Flack-Prain, S., Milodowski, D. T., Williams, M.: Characterizing the Error and Bias of Remotely Sensed LAI Products: An Example for Tropical and Subtropical Evergreen Forests in South China, Remote Sens., 12, 3122, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193122, 2020. a, b, c
Short summary
Model–data fusion (MDF) allows us to combine ecosystem models with Earth observation data. Fragmented landscapes, with a mosaic of contrasting ecosystems, pose a challenge for MDF. We develop a novel MDF framework to estimate the carbon balance of fragmented landscapes and show the importance of accounting for ecosystem heterogeneity to prevent scale-dependent bias in estimated carbon fluxes, disturbance fluxes in particular, and to improve ecological fidelity of the calibrated models.
Model–data fusion (MDF) allows us to combine ecosystem models with Earth observation data....
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint