the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelled forest ecosystem carbon-nitrogen dynamics with integrated mycorrhizal processes under elevated CO2
Melanie Alexandra Thurner
Silvia Caldararu
Jan Engel
Anja Rammig
Sönke Zaehle
Abstract. Almost 95 % of all terrestrial plant species form symbioses with mycorrhizal fungi that mediate plant-soil interactions: Mycorrhizae facilitate plant nitrogen (N) acquisition and are therefore vital for plant growth, but also build a pathway for plant-assimilated carbon (C) into the rhizosphere. Therefore, mycorrhizae likely play an important role in shaping the response of ecosystems to environmental changes such as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, which can increase plant N demand and the transfer of plant C assimilation to the soil. While the importance of mycorrhizal fungi is widely recognised, they are rarely represented in current terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) explicitly. Here we present a novel, dynamic plant-mycorrhiza-soil model as part of the TBM QUINCY. This new model is based on mycorrhizal functional types that either actively mine soil organic matter (SOM) for N or enhance soil microbial activity though increased transfer of labile C into the rhizosphere and thereby (passively) prime SOM decomposition. Using the Duke Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiment, we show that mycorrhizal fungi can have important effects on projected SOM turnover and plant nutrition under ambient as well as elevated CO2 treatments. Specifically, we find that including enhanced active mining of SOM for N in the model allows to more closely match the observations with respect to observed decadal responses of plant growth, plant N acquisition, and soil C dynamics to elevated CO2, whereas a simple enhancement of SOM turnover by increased below-ground C transfer of mycorrhizae is unable to replicate the observed responses. We provide an extensive parameter uncertainty study to investigate the robustness of our findings with respect to model parameters that cannot readily be constrained by observations. Our study points to the importance of implementing mycorrhizal functionalities in TBMs as well as to further observational needs to better constrain mycorrhizal models and to close the existing major knowledge gaps of actual mycorrhizal functioning.
- Preprint
(1274 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Melanie Alexandra Thurner et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on bg-2023-109', Joshua Fisher, 21 Aug 2023
This is a good paper, which represents among the leading edge of mycorrhizal incorporation into TBMs. By specifically not representing AM and ECM, but instead using mycorrhizal “functionalities”, the authors present a different perspective on how mycorrhizae may be incorporated. The analysis is limited to only 1 site, though this site is a good one for testing these dynamics; but, given the limited spatial analysis the results and conclusions should be taken very loosely by readers.
Overall, I think this paper should be published in Biogeosciences. I have some questions that the authors should include as responses as well as text updates, in addition to some missed literature that the authors may find thought-provoking and useful for discussion within the paper.
Questions:
- What is the computational cost of including MYC?
- How can you parameterize this globally?
- How does the model handle vegetation demographic (traits, PFTs, etc.) shifts e.g. with new bioclimatic envelopes with climate change and succession following disturbance, in relation to the mycorrhizal functions?
- Interesting that with saptotrophs, the variability is captured better in Fig 4a-d. Show some scatterplots to highlight those aspects and provide more insight into the behavior?
Minor notes:
- P21L4: strike “chose”
- P23L29-30: refs.
- P24L9-10: this is what we did in FUN 1.0 (Fisher et al 2010), which created the framework for explicit incorporation of mycorrhizae in FUN 2.0 (Brzostek et al 2014).
Additional literature:
- Incorporation of FUN 2.0 (Brzostek et al 2014, which you cite) into the larger TBM of CLM:
- Shi, M., Fisher, J.B., Brzostek, E.R., Phillips. R.P., 2016. Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: global carbon cycle impact from an improved plant nitrogen cycle in the Community Land Model. Global Change Biology22(3): 1299-1314.
- Fisher, R.A., Wieder, W.R., Sanderson, B.M., Koven, C.D., Oleson, K.W., Xu, C., Fisher, J.B., Shi, M., Walker, A.P., Lawrence, D.M., 2019. Parametric controls on vegetation responses to biogeochemical forcing in the CLM5. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems11(9): 2879-2895.
- Lawrence, D.M., Fisher, R.A., Koven, C.D., Oleson, K.W., Swenson, S.C., Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., van Kampenhout, L., Kennedy, D., Kluzek, E., Lawrence, P.J., Li, F., Li, H., Lombardozzi, D., Riley, W.J., Sacks, W.J., Shi, M., Vertenstein, M., Wieder, W.R., Xu, C., Ali, A.A., Badger, A.M., Bisht, G., Brunke, M.A., Burns, S.P., Buzan, J., Clark, M., Craig, A., Dahlin, K., Drewniak, B., Fisher, J.B., Flanner, M., Fox, A.M., Gentine, P., Hoffman, F., Keppel-Aleks, G., Knox, R., Kumar, S., Lenaerts, J., Leung, L.R., Lipscomb, W.H., Lu, Y., Pandey, A., Pelletier, J.D., Perket, J., Randerson, J.T., Ricciuto, D.M., Sanderson, B.M., Slater, A., Subin, Z.M., Tang, J., Thomas, R.Q., Val Martin, M., Zeng, X., 2019. The Community Land Model version 5: Description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems11(12): 4245-4287.
- Update of FUN 3.0 with phosphorus, and into ELM:
- Allen, K.E., Fisher, J.B., Phillips. R.P., Powers, J.S., Brzostek, E.R., 2020. Modeling the carbon cost of plant nitrogen and phosphorus uptake across temperate and tropical forests. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change3(43): 1-12.
- Braghiere, R.K., Fisher, J.B., Allen, K., Brzostek, E., Shi, M., Yang, X., Ricciuto, D.M., Fisher, R.A., Zhu, Q., Phillips, R.P, 2022. Modeling global carbon costs of plant nitrogen and phosphorus acquisition.Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 14(8): 1-23.
- Discussion on global distributions of mycorrhizae and their impacts on global TBMs:
- Braghiere, R.K., Fisher, J.B., Fisher, R.A., Shi, M., Steidinger, B.S., Sulman, B.N., Soudzilovskaia, N.A., Yang, X., Liang, J., Peay, K.G., Crowther, T.W., Phillips, R.P., 2021. Mycorrhizal distributions impact global patterns of carbon and nutrient cycling. Geophysical Research Letters48(19): 1-11. e2021GL094514.
Good work!
Josh Fisher
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-109-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2023-109', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Sep 2023
This model description paper by Thurner et al. describe a new model formulation that explicitly considers the effect of mycorrhizal association in process-based ecosystem model QUINCY. The concept of splitting mycorrhizal associations into saprotrophic mycorrhizae and decomposing mycorrhizae is novel. The mathematical formulations are sound. The model evaluation against observations from the Duke FACE experiment is also thorough. I don’t really any major concern over the manuscript, although I would love this see this model development applied at a P-limited site also, just to see how general the performance is. I think this paper would benefit the modelling community, and it certainly will stimulate the community to consider explicit representation of mycorrhizal association in land surface models.
A suggestion which the author may or may not want to consider, is to run the model with both mycorrhizal types and see how it affects plant biomass production and N uptake and their CO2 responses.
Specific comments:
L8: through, not “though”.
P7, Figure 2 caption: “Net exchange rates are partitioned into exudation from plant to
mycorrhizal fungi (Ep2m; e, dashed) and export from mycorrhizal fungi to plant (Em2p; e, dashed-dotted)”. What is “e” within the parentheses?
P8: Figure 3: DOY should be spelled in full.
Equation 8a: “Rmg” is “Rgm” in L13. Make sure they are consistent.
P12, L34: are the two runs the ambient and elevated CO2 runs? Unclear in the text.
P14, L2: experimental, not “experiment”. Also, do you have a reference to support this?
P14, L4 – 7: This is a long sentence, and the message is not very clear. I suggest to break it into two sentences.
L4, L11: two “is”.
Figure 6: Do you have error bars for the observations, especially for soil C?
P18, last sentence to P19, L4. This is a very long sentence. Consider rephrase it.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-109-RC2
Melanie Alexandra Thurner et al.
Melanie Alexandra Thurner et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
211 | 61 | 12 | 284 | 9 | 11 |
- HTML: 211
- PDF: 61
- XML: 12
- Total: 284
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1