<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \bartext{Research article}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ESD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth System Dynamics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Syst. Dynam.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2190-4987</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/esd-14-915-2023</article-id><title-group><article-title>Carbon fluxes in spring wheat agroecosystem in India</article-title><alt-title>Carbon fluxes in spring wheat agroecosystem in India</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Carbon fluxes in spring wheat agroecosystem in India}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{K.~N.~Reddy et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Reddy</surname><given-names>Kangari Narender</given-names></name>
          <email>knreddyiitd@gmail.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1626-3860</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gahlot</surname><given-names>Shilpa</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Baidya Roy</surname><given-names>Somnath</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7677-4972</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Varma</surname><given-names>Gudimetla Venkateswara</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Sehgal</surname><given-names>Vinay Kumar</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Vangala</surname><given-names>Gayatri</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology
Delhi, New Delhi, 110016, India</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Division of Agricultural Physics, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi, 380015, India</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Kangari Narender Reddy (knreddyiitd@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>8</day><month>September</month><year>2023</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>915</fpage><lpage>930</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>16</day><month>January</month><year>2023</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>January</month><year>2023</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>30</day><month>June</month><year>2023</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>2</day><month>August</month><year>2023</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2023 Kangari Narender Reddy et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2023</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023.html">This article is available from https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e134">Carbon fluxes from agroecosystems contribute to the
variability of the carbon cycle and atmospheric [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>]. This study is a
follow-up to Gahlot et al. (2020), which used the Integrated Science
Assessment Model (ISAM) to examine spring wheat production and its drivers.
In this study, we look at the carbon fluxes and their drivers. ISAM
was calibrated and validated against the crop phenology at the IARI wheat
experimental site in Gahlot et al. (2020). We extended the validation of
the
model on a regional scale by comparing modeled leaf area index (LAI) and yield against site-scale observations and regional datasets. Later, ISAM-simulated carbon
fluxes were validated against an experimental spring wheat site at IARI for
the growing season of 2013–2014. Additionally, we compared with the published
carbon flux data and found that ISAM captures the seasonality well.
Following that, regional-scale runs were performed. The results revealed
that fluxes vary significantly across regions, primarily owing to
differences in planting dates. During the study period, all fluxes showed
statistically significant increasing trends (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Gross primary  production (GPP), net primary production (NPP), autotrophic
respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and heterotrophic respiration
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) increased at 1.272,
0.945, 0.579, 0.328, and 0.366 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Numerical experiments
were conducted to investigate how natural forcings such as changing
temperature and [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] levels as well as agricultural management practices such
as
nitrogen fertilization and water availability could contribute to the
rising
trends. The experiments revealed that increasing [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], nitrogen
fertilization, and irrigation water contributed to increased carbon fluxes,
with nitrogen fertilization having the most significant effect.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>Indian Space Research Organisation</funding-source>
<award-id>ISRO-GBP: CAP(ASP) E303A20AD304</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e220">Croplands are highly productive ecosystems that exchange energy, carbon, and
water with the atmosphere (Lokupitiya et al., 2016). Croplands absorb a
significant amount of carbon from the atmosphere during their short growing season,
contributing to seasonal variations in atmospheric carbon loading. The rise
in carbon levels in the atmosphere has complicated effects on agricultural
productivity (Yoshimoto et al., 2005; Saha et al., 2020). Temperature,
nitrogen fertilizers, and irrigation are all factors that influence crop
development and, as a result, alter carbon fluxes from croplands (Lin et
al., 2021). For example, increasing temperature can offset the beneficial
effects of increased atmospheric carbon (Sonkar et al., 2019). Better-fertilized soil can respond better to higher carbon levels (Lin et al.,
2021). Lands with limited water availability have lower carbon fluxes
(Hatfield and Prueger, 2015; Green et al., 2019). Understanding the
variability and drivers of carbon fluxes from agroecosystems can thus
contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between the
biosphere and the atmosphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e223">Wheat is one of the world's most widely farmed cereal crops and a staple
food for approximately 2.5 billion people (Ramadas et al., 2020). Winter
wheat and spring wheat are the two cultural types of wheat grown worldwide.
Spring wheat is grown in India. Spring wheat is typically planted in
October–November and harvested between March and April in India (Ramadas et
al., 2020). With approximately 107 Mt in 2020, India ranks second only to
China in wheat production, accounting for 13.5 % of the global wheat
supply<?pagebreak page916?> (FAOSTAT, 2019). Wheat production in India has increased by 25 %
since 2008. The harvested area  increased from 28 Mha in 2008 to 29 Mha
in 2019 (FAOSTAT, 2019). However, research into carbon in spring wheat
croplands is limited. The current study is the first to evaluate the
carbon dynamics and the impact of their drivers in the Indian agroecosystem.</p>
      <p id="d1e226">Baldocchi et al. (2018) extensively reviewed the variability of carbon
fluxes from terrestrial ecosystems across the globe, but there are no
studies from the Indian subcontinent. A few studies examined carbon fluxes
at the site scale in northern Indian spring wheat agroecosystems. Patel et
al. (2011) for the 2008–2009 growing season, Patel et al. (2021) for the
2014–2015 growing season, and Kumar et al. (2021) for the 2013–2014 growing
season are examples of these studies. All studies found the typical U-shaped
curve in the net ecosystem production (NEP) at diurnal and seasonal scales. The average NEP during the
growing season was 5–6 gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Only the intra-annual
variation of carbon
fluxes can be discussed in site-scale studies. Studying interannual
variability in carbon fluxes is difficult because  flux towers are only
operational for 1 or 2 years. Furthermore, there are only a few flux
towers in the agroecosystems of India, and they are all installed in the
northern region. Site-scale carbon studies cannot be extended to
understand carbon fluxes at a regional scale over India because the climate
and growing conditions vary considerably across wheat-growing regions of
India.</p>
      <p id="d1e253">Process-based models are commonly used to study carbon dynamics (Sándor
et al., 2020). These models explicitly characterize known or hypothesized
cause-and-effect relationships between physiological processes and
environmental driving forces (Chuine and Régnière, 2017).
Process-based crop models can simulate crop production, phenology, carbon,
energy fluxes, and the interannual variability in crop carbon budgets using
atmospheric and management data as inputs (Revill et al., 2019). This study
used the Integrated Science Assessment Model (ISAM), a process-based land
surface model with bio-geochemical and bio-geophysical components. ISAM was
developed to assess the effect of variations in CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration on
agroecosystems
(Jain
and Yang, 2005; Song et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2009).</p>
      <p id="d1e266">The main benefit of using process-based models is that they can quantify the
direct effect of input parameters and external drivers on crop growth and
fluxes (Jones et al., 2017). There are a few studies on carbon fluxes in
Indian terrestrial ecosystems (Banger et al., 2015; Gahlot et al., 2017),
but none on agroecosystems. A significant bottleneck in modeling
agroecosystems in India is the lack of observation data on crop phenology.
We are trying to bridge the gap between the on-field research extensively
carried out across India at agricultural institutions and modeling studies
through our efforts to digitize the research into a machine-readable format.
As a result, we assembled comprehensive crop phenology data
for spring wheat for the first time. These efforts will be extended to a variety of crops grown
across India.</p>
      <p id="d1e269">To our knowledge, no long-term regional-scale studies of carbon dynamics
over Indian agroecosystems have been conducted. Crop management practices
can significantly impact crop growth and interaction with the land and
atmosphere via water, energy, nutrients, and carbon exchanges. There has
been no research on the impact of these management practices on carbon
fluxes in Indian agroecosystems. The current study is  the first to
address these issues, significantly contributing to our understanding of
terrestrial carbon dynamics using a land surface model.</p>
      <p id="d1e272">The overarching goal of this study is to investigate carbon dynamics over
spring wheat croplands in India and quantify the role of various natural and
anthropogenic drivers that govern carbon fluxes. The specific goals of this
paper are (i) to validate the ISAM simulation of Indian spring
wheat, (ii) to investigate the spatiotemporal variation in carbon fluxes
over spring wheat croplands in India, and (iii) to quantify the effect of
external drivers such as changing temperature and [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] as well as agricultural
management practices.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Modeling approach</title>
      <p id="d1e299">ISAM has a dynamic growth module to simulate various
crops (Song et al., 2013). Gahlot et al. (2020) used the dynamic crop module
to represent Indian spring wheat by calibrating the allocation and
growth parameters (supplement of Gahlot et al., 2020). The
allocation and the growth parameters were calibrated using data from the
experimental site at IARI, New Delhi, which was operational for three
growing seasons: 2013–2014, 2014–2015, and 2015–2016. Carbon fluxes were
measured
during the 2013–2014 growing season, and phenology data were measured during
the latter two seasons. ISAM was calibrated and validated using
phenology observations from the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 growing seasons
(Gahlot et al., 2020). Taking this work forward, we used the same
configuration of the model to estimate the carbon fluxes in the spring wheat
croplands of India. The modeling approach used in the study is as follows.
First, ISAM  was run in site-scale mode to simulate the carbon
fluxes at the IARI site driven by prescribed management data. The
simulations were evaluated against field measurements from the IARI site for
the 2013–2014 growing season. Next, ISAM was run at a country scale to
simulate carbon fluxes over wheat-growing regions of India from 1901–2016.
Finally, we conducted numerical experiments to simulate the impacts of
environmental drivers and agricultural management practices on carbon
fluxes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Model description</title>
      <p id="d1e310">This study used ISAM in the same configuration as
Gahlot et al. (2020). For brevity, here we briefly describe the model<?pagebreak page917?> and its
configuration. More details are available in Gahlot et al. (2020) and
Gahlot (2020). We used two versions of ISAM crop modules to validate the
improvements made by Gahlot et al. (2020), ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The two versions were run for the
same period and used the same input data, and the simulated carbon fluxes
were compared. The ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> module has static
phenology and prescribed leaf area index (LAI) using observations from the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard the Terra and Aqua satellites. The
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> module used a static root parameterization with
fixed rooting depth and fixed root fraction in each soil layer. Energy and
water fluxes as well as carbon assimilation are calculated through coupled canopy
photosynthesis, energy, and hydrological processes. Assimilated carbon is
allocated to vegetation pools in fixed fractions.
Gahlot et al. (2020) used the dynamic equations in ISAM developed by Song et
al. (2013)
for soybeans and updated a few parameters from the literature and a few
through calibration to simulate spring wheat (ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(supplement of Gahlot et al., 2020).
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> differs from the static version in three
schemes: dynamic phenology, carbon allotment, and vegetation structure
growth. For example, allocating net assimilated carbon to leaves, roots,
stems, and grain pools at each model time step is a dynamic process based on
the crop's light, temperature, water, and nitrogen availability. This
allocation scheme aims to minimize the adverse effects of limited light,
water, and nutrient stress on the crop (Gahlot, 2020). For more details on
the dynamic modules in ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, please refer to
Gahlot (2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e421">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is equipped with dynamic planting date
criteria and heat stress modules to simulate the effects of environmental
factors on the spring wheat  growing season and phenology (Gahlot et al., 2020).
The dynamic planting date is calculated in ISAM, as shown in Table S2 of
Gahlot et al. (2020). The wheat-growing regions are divided based on
the 1901–1950 climatological minimum temperature. A specific criterion is
assumed for each region depending on the region's characteristics (Table S2:
Gahlot et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e438">Yield is a proxy for the carbon uptake by the crops. The initial
reproductive stage in ISAM marks the onset of the storage organs. The
allocation of assimilated carbon to the storage organ begins, and the
vegetative development of the plant stops. The next stage, the
post-reproductive stage, marks the solidification of grains and increased
nutrient allocation to the grains while ensuring that capable roots  support the
plant. After the crop reaches maturity, the total grain allocation from the
initial reproductive stage to maturity is converted to yield. Various
factors like light availability, temperature stress, and nitrogen
availability act as limiting factors to crop growth, and nutrient allocation
is promoted in the crop so that the impact of these factors is minimized
(supplement  of Gahlot et al., 2020). Since yield is a major part of
the carbon taken up by the crop, its validation against observations is
necessary and is shown in Sect. 3.2.</p>
      <p id="d1e441">ISAM simulates the processes through which external drivers can affect crop
growth. For example, temperature influences maximum carboxylation rates,
which regulates carbon assimilation (Song et al., 2013). ISAM can
simulate nitrogen dynamics and the interactive effects of carbon–nitrogen
cycles caused by climate change or increasing [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] (Yang et al., 2009).
Nitrogen fertilization through deposition onto the soil serves as a nitrogen
input to the ISAM nitrogen cycle (Jain et al., 2009). When water and mineral
N are scarce, the carbon cycle and assimilation suffer because of reduced
carbon allocation to leaves and stems (Song et al., 2013). Added water
through irrigation reduces the water stress on crops in water-limited
situations, thereby increasing carbohydrate production.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Data for model evaluation</title>
      <p id="d1e461">To evaluate the ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> crop phenology and yield,
we digitized the spring wheat crop dataset from 2000–2021. The dataset
was extracted from the theses of MSc and PhD students at various
agricultural institutions across India. Until recently, these theses were
not available in the public domain, but through the efforts of KRISHIKOSH, a
thesis repository, it now holds a large number of theses. The dataset we
compiled comprises nine spring wheat sites and 26 growing seasons (Table S1).
Comparing the spring wheat phenology and yield simulated by ISAM across
26 growing seasons adds to the much-needed validation of ISAM.</p>
      <p id="d1e478">Field observations of carbon fluxes are limited in India, and none are
available in the public domain. We obtained field observations of carbon
fluxes for the 2013–2014 spring wheat-growing season from the IARI (New Delhi)
experimental spring wheat farm (Kumar et al., 2021). The farm, covering 650 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, is located at 28<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 77<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. The
site has an eddy  covariance (EC)
flux tower that gave gross primary production (GPP), total ecosystem
respiration (TER), and net ecosystem production (NEP). The tower had enough
area to ensure an upwind stretch of homogeneous vegetation, essential for
measuring fluxes using the EC technique
(Schmid, 1994). The spring wheat
crop was planted on 16 December 2013 at the site. Nitrogen fertilizer at
120 kg N ha<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was applied in three installments of 60, 30, and
30 kg N ha<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on the planting day and the 25th and 67th days after
sowing. The
field was irrigated five times throughout the growing season to avert water
stress.</p>
      <p id="d1e551">To extend our validation of carbon fluxes simulated by ISAM, we conducted a
literature review to find papers that reported carbon fluxes from spring
wheat. We found two such studies: Patel et al. (2011) and Patel et
al. (2021). Data were not available as a supplement in these papers.
Therefore,
we extracted the data from the figures. We extracted the monthly mean NEP
data from Fig. 2 of Patel et al. (2011) and Fig. 2b of Patel et al. (2021).
Although we extracted the flux data, we do not have the field
activities to simulate site-scale<?pagebreak page918?> simulations. Therefore, we compared our
regional-scale simulations against these carbon flux data.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Meteorological and management data</title>
      <p id="d1e562">All ISAM simulations need data for both environmental and anthropogenic
drivers. We used annual atmospheric [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] data from Le Quéré et
al. (2018) and climate data from Viovy (2018) for both site-scale and
country-scale simulations. The temporal resolution of the climate data is
6 h, and we interpolated the climate data to hourly values. The planting
date, nitrogen, and irrigation data used for the site-scale runs are
described in Sect. 2.3.</p>
      <p id="d1e574">For the country-scale runs, we used nitrogen fertilizer data developed by
Gahlot et al. (2020) by combining data from
Ren et al. (2018) and Mueller et al. (2012).
Data on the harvested wheat area in a gridded format are needed (1980–2016)
for calculating fluxes at a country scale in units of teragrams of carbon   per year (TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). We
used spring
wheat harvested area data developed by Gahlot et al. (2020), combining
harvested area from Monfreda et al. (2008) and
MAFW (2017).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Experimental design</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS1">
  <label>2.5.1</label><title>Site-scale simulations at the IARI site</title>
      <p id="d1e605">Gahlot et al. (2020) calibrated and validated  ISAM using
phenology observations from the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 growing seasons. We
designed a site-scale carbon flux experiment to validate ISAM
carbon fluxes against field observations for the growing season of 2013–2014.
To
simulate the carbon fluxes at a site scale, ISAM  was spun up for
the 2013–2014 growing season using climate data from Viovy (2018), annual
atmospheric [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] data from Le Quéré et al. (2018), and
airborne nitrogen deposition data (Dentener, 2006) until the soil parameters
reached a steady state. The steady-state conditions used in the study are
the same as those followed by Yang et al. (2005). Further details on the
site-scale spin-up are available in Gahlot et al. (2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e617">We used ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the same configuration as
Gahlot et al. (2020) to simulate carbon fluxes for the 2013–2014 growing
season.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS2">
  <label>2.5.2</label><title>Country-wide simulations over wheat-growing regions of India</title>
      <p id="d1e642">The country-wide simulations were designed to understand the spatial
variation of carbon fluxes across India's wheat-growing regions using the
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> module. To simulate the carbon fluxes at a
regional scale, ISAM was spun up for 1901 to maintain constant soil
parameters such as temperature, moisture, and carbon and nitrogen pools. For
the spin-up, we used the climate data from Viovy (2018) for the years
1901–1920, with airborne nitrogen deposition
(Dentener 2006) and [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>]
(Quéré et al., 2018) held at levels of 1901 and neglecting nitrogen
fertilizer and irrigation.</p>
      <p id="d1e668">We used ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to conduct regional-scale
simulations over wheat-growing regions of India to understand the
variability of carbon fluxes across diverse climates (Ortiz et al., 2008) and
management conditions. We ran the model for the period 1901–2016. First,
we conducted a control run (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) driven by the annual [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>],
climate
data, nitrogen fertilizer data, and full irrigation to meet crop water
needs. Irrigation is a crucial factor in spring wheat cultivation, with
93.6 % of the wheat area equipped for irrigation (MOA
2016), and the Indo-Gangetic Plain significantly contributes to the total
wheat area irrigated in India (Gahlot et al., 2020). Data on the exact
volume of irrigation water were not available. Therefore, in the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
simulation, each grid cell was considered 100 % irrigated (i.e., to field
capacity), so there was no water stress on the crops (Gahlot et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e716">Our analysis focused on the years 1980–2016. We analyzed country-scale
model results as inter-decadal changes from the 1980s to the 2010s. We
calculated decadal averages for various fluxes by dividing the total period
into the 1980s (1980–1989), 1990s (1990– 1999), 2000s (2000–2009),
and 2010s (2010–2016). The regional-scale simulations validate the crop
phenology and yield of spring wheat. The crop dataset we compiled was
compared with the 26 growing seasons of data.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e722">Comparison of observations and ISAM  fluxes for <bold>(a)</bold> GPP,
<bold>(b)</bold> TER,
and <bold>(c)</bold> NEP.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f01.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e742">Comparison of <bold>(a)</bold> yield simulated by ISAM and <bold>(b)</bold>
EarthStat
gridded data. <bold>(c)</bold> Yield simulated by ISAM against yield observations
from
the spring wheat crop dataset.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS3">
  <label>2.5.3</label><title>Experiments to estimate the effect of external drivers on
carbon
fluxes</title>
      <p id="d1e768">Environmental drivers like temperature and [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] as well as agricultural
management
practices like applying nitrogen fertilizers and irrigation influence spring
wheat growth and are likely to influence carbon fluxes. We conducted four
additional experimental simulations to quantitatively estimate these forcings' effects. The details of the experiments are given in Table 1. In the
control run (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the model was driven by inputs based on
observations that vary over time. In the experimental simulations, the value
of an input driver was kept constant during the study period, while others
were allowed to vary, as in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> simulation. For example, in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the input data for [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], nitrogen, and irrigation
were
identical to those in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, except for temperature, for which we
used
the de-trended 1900–1930 climatology. In the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fert</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
case, the [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], temperature, and irrigation were identical to those in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and nitrogen fertilization was absent. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> case is
like <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the only difference being that precipitation
climatology was
used, and no additional water was provided to the soil through irrigation.
We calculated the effect of the individual driver as the difference between
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run and the numerical experiments.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e907">Numerical experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of external drivers on carbon fluxes using ISAM dynamic wheat crops for 1901–2016.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="3.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="3.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Numerical</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">[CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Nitrogen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Irrigation</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Experiment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Fertilization</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Control (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6-hourly CRU-NCEP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Yearly values from the Global<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Carbon Project Budget 2017</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Grid-cell-specific<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>fertilizer amount</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Hourly values to ensure<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>no water stress</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Climatological daily<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>temperature prepared<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>from the period 1900–1930</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fixed at 1901 level</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fert</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">No fertilizer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Identical to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">No irrigation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> no<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>precipitation change</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><?xmltex \gdef\@currentlabel{1}?></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page919?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Evaluation of ISAM site-scale simulations</title>
      <p id="d1e1278">Site-scale ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> simulations are validated
against observations for the 2013–2014 growing season. Our results show that the
spring wheat module ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> simulates the
magnitude and seasonality of carbon fluxes in spring wheat croplands better
than ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 1 and Table 2 compare
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
against site observations for monthly average fluxes for the 2013–2014
growing season. Figure 1 shows that the observed carbon fluxes increased
from leaf emergence in mid-December 2013. The fluxes increased until they
reached their peaks in March, after which they declined until the harvest in
April.</p>
      <p id="d1e1357">The simulated fluxes follow the observed pattern. ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
was in better agreement with site observations than the
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model. ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
captured the seasonality and accumulated GPP, TER, and NEP for the growing
season better than the ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model (Table 2). The
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> peak coincided with the observations,
whereas the fluxes simulated by the ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model
peaked about a month earlier. The ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model in
ISAM compares better with site measurements for plant biomass at harvest and
maximum LAI than the ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model (Table 2).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1488">Various crop parameters of ISAMdyn_wheat and
ISAMC3_crop against site measurements. We compared field
observations at the IARI experimental wheat farm site and ISAM crop
varieties (the dynamic crop and C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> generic crop) for the growing season of
2013–2014.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Site</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cumulative GPP (gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">882</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">799.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">335.65</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cumulative TER (gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">304</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">278.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">176.63</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cumulative NEP (gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">576</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">523.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">159.02</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TER GPP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Plant biomass at harvest (t ha<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">13.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Correlation coefficient TER and GPP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.81</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.24</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Maximum LAI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><?xmltex \gdef\@currentlabel{2}?></table-wrap>

      <?pagebreak page920?><p id="d1e1726">Table 3 shows the Willmott index and RMSE for the two ISAM runs against the
site observations. The Willmott index is a more sophisticated tool for
evaluating land surface models' efficiency than the usual statistical data
comparison indices
(Song
et al., 2013; Willmott et al., 2012). The Willmott index (Eq. 1) ranges from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 to 1, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 indicates no agreement, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 indicates perfect
agreement. The Willmott index values for GPP, TER, and NEP for the
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model are 0.85, 0.73, and 0.83,
respectively. The corresponding values for the ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
model are much lower at 0.47, 0.46, and 0.47, respectively. The
higher index value for the dynamic crop suggested  better agreement of
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> over ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with
the site-scale observations.

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M98" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Willmot</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">index</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Model</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Model</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Model</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Model</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RMSE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Model</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of observations, Model<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> represents
the ISAM-simulated carbon fluxes, and Obs<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the site-scale
observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e2208">Therefore, the ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> module appropriately
represents spring wheat crop dynamics in  ISAM. The dynamic
phenology, dynamic carbon allotment, and dynamic vegetation structure growth
improve crop simulation in a land surface model. However, one should use
caution in calibrating and validating the model with sufficient data.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2228">Willmott index and RMSE (gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> month<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of monthly
carbon fluxes (GPP,
NEP, and TER).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Willmott index </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">RMSE </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crop</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GPP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">42.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">162.62</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TER</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">20.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">45.90</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NEP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">36.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">120.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><?xmltex \gdef\@currentlabel{3}?></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Validation of yield simulated by ISAM</title>
      <p id="d1e2425">A major limitation of Gahlot et al. (2020) was validating ISAM
against just one experimental site. To increase the confidence in model
simulations, we compared the sowing date (Fig. S1), LAI (Fig. S2), and
yield (Fig. 2) simulated by ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> against the
crop dataset we compiled.</p>
      <p id="d1e2442">The yield simulated by ISAM is compared against the gridded EarthStat
dataset (Monfreda et al., 2008) and site-scale observations (Fig. 2). The
EarthStat data are reported as a 5-year mean yield for 1995, 2000, and
2005. The ISAM simulations over a similar period are compared in Fig. 2.
The comparison confirms that the ISAM simulation agrees with the EarthStat
gridded data in most wheat-growing regions except for small parts of the
eastern and northwestern regions. This bias is explained by the difference
in the sowing date simulated by ISAM and the GGCMI dataset (Fig. S1).
However, analyzing the LAI site-scale comparison (Fig. S2), the growing
season simulated by ISAM in the northwestern region (Jobner site) has good
agreement with the observations in three growing seasons (2013, 2014, and
2015). This gives us the confidence that the dynamic planting date module in
ISAM performs reasonably well. Additionally, even in the<?pagebreak page921?> site-scale data we
have at the IARI site, the spring wheat is sown on 16 December, which
aligns with our ISAM simulations for this region. The northeastern and
eastern parts of the wheat-growing areas of India are mostly irrigated, have
very fertile soil, and have high yields; one of the largest wheat producers
in India is in this region. Therefore, we are confident about the yields
simulated by ISAM in this region and believe that the EarthStat data used
for this yield  generation might be biased. This assumption is supported
by the site-scale yield comparison in Fig. 2c, which shows that ISAM-simulated yield has good agreement with the observations (Pearson's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.57</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The yields are high in the western parts of EarthStat data, a
semi-arid region with less rain and no irrigation. These regions often have
lower yields, and we believe that the EarthStat data are biased in this
region.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Spatial–temporal variability of carbon fluxes from spring wheat
agroecosystems in India</title>
      <p id="d1e2465">The country-scale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run described in Sect. 2.5.2 was designed
to
provide a quantitative understanding of the spatiotemporal variability of
carbon fluxes across the wheat-growing regions of India. Before evaluating
the regional-scale ISAM runs, we compared the simulated NEP from the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
run with the carbon flux data from Patel et al. (2011, 2021). The monthly
averaged carbon flux data were digitized from the figures. Patel et al. (2011)
measured the carbon fluxes from January–April 2009 over spring wheat
farmland in Meerut in northern India. The measurements provided diurnal
variation of net   ecosystem exchange (NEE) during four growing stages: tillering, anthesis,
post-anthesis, and at maturity. The diurnal data at a growing stage were
averaged, and a value representing a monthly NEE was calculated and
converted to NEP. Patel et al. (2021) provided daily NEE values for spring
wheat farmland in Saharanpur in northern India. The Patel et al. (2021) data
were used to generate the monthly average fluxes for the growing season of
2014–2015. The simulated NEP at the grid cells where Meerut and Saharanpur
are located is extracted from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> output. Figure 3
represents
the comparison of simulated monthly average NEP (NEP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ISAM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
NEP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OBS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measured at Meerut (2009) (Patel
et al., 2011) and Saharanpur (2014–2015) (Patel
et al., 2021). The sowing
dates simulated by ISAM are in the second week of December, while the spring
wheat is sown in the last week of November in the observation data.
Therefore, Fig. 3 shows the season-to-season comparison of the sites and
ISAM simulations. The seasonality at Saharanpur is captured very well,
although with a small bias. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value for the sites is high and
significant at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, showing that the ISAM-simulated NEP captures
the variation in observed NEP. The mean absolute bias between observed and
simulated NEP at Saharanpur and Meerut is 30.96
and 43.69 gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> month<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The bias may be because
we compare site-scale
observations with simulated values averaged over the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2500 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) grid cell area. Nonetheless, the high
correlations with site observations point to the ISAM simulations'
robustness.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2606">Comparison of the ISAM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the observations from
Saharanpur (Patel et al., 2021) and Meerut (Patel et al., 2011).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2628">Spatial variation of <bold>(a)</bold> GPP, <bold>(b)</bold> TER, and
<bold>(c)</bold> NEP over the
wheat-growing regions of India averaged over the period 2000–2016.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2647">Figure 4 shows the spatial maps of GPP, TER, and NEP for the growing season
(December–March). The fluxes for each month of the growing season were
averaged over 16 years (2000–2016) for that specific month. Because
the climatic conditions across wheat-growing regions of India are diverse,
the wheat crops are sown on different dates, which was reflected in ISAM
using the dynamic planting day criteria. Spring wheat is planted in
late October in central India and in early November in eastern India. The
northern and northwestern planting dates are late November to early
December (Fig. S1). Consequently, there are regional variations in the
seasonal flux dynamics. The wheat-growing regions' central and eastern parts
show the maximum flux value in January and February, respectively, while the
northern and western parts show the maxima in March. The spatial plots show
very low values of GPP and NEP during December because the crops are still
in early growth. The croplands show very low values of NEP during March in
the central and eastern parts of wheat-growing regions. Even though the
croplands are not active, heterotrophic respiration leads to moderate values
of TER in March for the eastern and central parts of India.</p>
      <p id="d1e2650">Figure 5 depicts the temporal pattern of annual and decadal fluxes. From
1980–2016, the GPP, NEP, NPP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the
spring wheat croplands
increased at 1.272, 0.945, 0.579, 0.328, and 0.366 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively. The trends represent the slope of the linear trend line, and
the trends are significant at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, calculated using a
two-tailed
test. Figure 5b shows the box–whisker plots. The box represents the 25–75th
percentile of the data, and the whisker shows 3 times the interquartile
range (3IQR). The data<?pagebreak page922?> outside this 3IQR whisker are extreme outliers. The
median of all the fluxes showed a more significant increase from the 1980s
to the 1990s compared to the 1990s to the 2000s. The rise was again steep
from the 2000s to the 2010s.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2701">Carbon fluxes simulated by ISAM. <bold>(a)</bold> The time series
of
fluxes from 1980–2016. <bold>(b)</bold> Decadal averages of fluxes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2716">The spatial trends of the fluxes over 36 years were examined. Figure 6
depicts the difference in the linear trend of total carbon uptake by spring
wheat between the 2010s and 1980s. The linear trend was calculated at each
grid point using singular spectrum analysis (Golyandina et al., 2013).
The difference between the calculated trend line at each grid between the
2010s and 1980s gives us the total change in carbon fluxes over the period.
The stippling in the figure shows the grids with significant trend signals
from 1980–2016, calculated at a significance level of 95 %. The results
show that the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) region of India saw a significant
increase in GPP than all other regions over the 37-year period. We
can also observe a slight decrease in GPP in the western region. A similar
trend in TER is observed, but the magnitude is less than that of GPP. The
total carbon taken up by the spring wheat during the growing season is given
by NEP, and the figure shows no significant increase in carbon uptake in the
southern and northwestern parts. However, the IGP, along with Punjab and
Haryana, has a significant increase in carbon uptake. Figures 5 and 6
highlight how the carbon uptake by spring wheat has changed over 3 decades and the spatial variation in this trend. The impact of climatic and
management practices causing the above-observed trends is analyzed in the
next section.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2721">The difference in carbon fluxes (the 1980s vs. 2010s). The stippled
regions have a trend signal significant at 95 %.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Effects of external drivers on carbon fluxes</title>
      <p id="d1e2738">We investigated the impact of two climate drivers, changing temperature and
[CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], as well as two agricultural practices, nitrogen fertilizer and water
availability due to irrigation, on carbon fluxes from spring wheat
croplands. Figure S4<?pagebreak page923?> depicts the variation of
these variables. Figure S4a
shows the temperature anomaly between  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
temperatures are always warmer in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. During the study period, the temperature anomaly increased
at 0.038 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S4a). [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] has also shown a
consistent rise and
increased at 1.743 ppm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S4b). The nitrogen fertilizer added
to
the C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> crops increased at 1.86 kg ha<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over 36 years
from 1980–2016
(Fig. S4c)
(Hurtt
et al., 2011). Figure S4d displays the anomaly in water in the root zone
during the growing season, estimated as the difference between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Irrigation increases the water available to crops during
the
growing season in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run provides
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 120 mm per season more water to the crop than the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
run, which is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % of the wheat crop water requirement
during the growing season.</p>
      <p id="d1e2941">The effects of these factors are estimated by analyzing the difference in
simulated carbon fluxes between the control and experimental simulation
(Fig. 7 and Table 4). Results show that the increase in temperature has a
negative effect on all the fluxes. The temperature anomaly rose at
0.038 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and yearly GPP decreased at
0.597 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during the study
period. The mean temperature anomaly during the growing season in each
decade is 0.25, 0.67, 1.43, and 0.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The temperature varied
less
between the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, a slight difference in median GPP
between these two decades is observed (Fig. 7a). However, a higher
spread in the box–whisker plot of GPP is observed in the 1990s, which
reflects a few growing seasons with considerable high-temperature
variation. The higher temperatures during the 2000s and 2010s caused a
significant decrease in GPP. Since the temperatures varied considerably
during the 2000s and 2010s, a large spread in simulated GPP can be observed.
Similar trends in NPP and NEP can be observed with a decrease of 21.9 and
13.9 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> rise in temperature. Due to a temperature
rise, the
growing period and the crop phenology shorten
(Koehler et al., 2013; Sonkar et al., 2019),
which is also simulated by ISAM (Figs. S5a and S6a). Hence a decrease
in fluxes is observed. As the crop growth decreases, the TER and NEP also
decrease.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e3030">The impact of various drivers (temperature and CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, as well as
agricultural practices: nitrogen fertilization and water added through
irrigation) on wheat carbon fluxes. The impact of temperature is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Similarly, the impact of CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, nitrogen fertilization is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fert</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and water added through irrigation is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The variation
in the impact of each variable across each decade is shown in box–whisker
plots.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e3142">Spatial variation in the impact of temperature, [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>],
nitrogen fertilization, and water added to spring wheat on the GPP, TER, and
NEP.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/915/2023/esd-14-915-2023-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3160">We analyzed the spatial variation in the impact of temperature on the GPP,
TER, and NEP (Fig. 8). The figure shows the impact of temperature
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) averaged from 1980–2016. The stippling
in the
figure shows the grids with significant trend signals from 1980–2016,
calculated at a significance level of 95 %. The temperatures in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are the de-trended climatological values from 1900–1930. Figure S4 shows
the anomaly in growing season temperatures between the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> simulations. We observe that the higher temperatures in the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run caused a decrease in carbon taken up by the spring wheat
compared to the lower temperatures in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run. However, the
carbon uptake<?pagebreak page924?> decrease is inconsistent across the wheat-growing regions. The
IGP, Punjab, Haryana, and a few parts of central India are primarily
affected by the higher temperatures, while the impact is less in other
regions. Interestingly, only some trend signals are significant at 95 %,
especially in the eastern IGP, Punjab, and Haryana. The trend in the impact
of the temperature of TER is consistent over most wheat-growing regions,
although the magnitude is less. The impact on NEP due to higher temperatures
is consistently negative across the wheat-growing regions but insignificant
in the IGP, Punjab, and Haryana. This behavior in these regions might be because
these areas are highly irrigated.</p>
      <p id="d1e3237">Results showed that the increase in [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] alone has led to a rise in
annual GPP, NEP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.805, 0.422, 0.201,
and 0.175 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively (Table 4). During the study period, [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] rose at
1.743 ppm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, causing an increase in GPP by 462 GgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for
a unit parts per million (ppm) rise
in [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>]. The GPP had a consistent rise each decade (Fig. 7). A large
spread in GPP was observed in the 1980s. The [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] has consistently
increased (Fig. S4b), but the temperature anomaly in the 1980s was below
zero for a few growing seasons (Fig. S4a). Therefore,  significant variation in GPP
and other fluxes was observed (Fig. 5a) in this decade. Similarly, due
to higher CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> availability for the wheat crops, NPP, NEP, and TER
increased by 202, 100, and 173 GgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> per part per million rise in [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>]. As
the
[CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] level increases in the environment, more carbon is available for
crop uptake by photosynthesis (Saha et al.,
2020). Analyzing the spatial variation in the impact of [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] (Fig. 8), we
observe that the higher [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> led to higher carbon
uptake
across all the wheat-growing regions, with a higher impact observed in the IGP,
Punjab, and Haryana. The impact of [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] is significant in all the
wheat-growing regions. Similar trends in TER and NEP are observed, although
with a lower magnitude.</p>
      <p id="d1e3421">Nitrogen fertilization  increased NEP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
at 0.468, 0.231, and
0.197 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The impact of nitrogen fertilization on
GPP at 0.897 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was the highest among all the factors.
Nitrogen
fertilization caused an increase in GPP by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 33 TgC on an
annual basis. Similarly, NEP increased by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 17 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased by
by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.
Nitrogen
fertilization is essential in India due to its tropical climate and multiple
cropping systems
(Gahlot et al.,
2020). Studies have shown that nitrogen availability impacts carbon uptake
through  progressive nitrogen limitation
(Jain et al., 2009). Though
progressive nitrogen limitation is observed over longer timescales than the
growing period of the crops, the decadal carbon flux simulations revealed
some exciting results. Even under excess [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], if nitrogen is<?pagebreak page925?> limited,
crop
growth does not show a significant difference, but a decrease in carbon
uptake is observed
(Jain et
al., 2009; Luo et al., 2006). Under excess [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], if sufficient nitrogen
is
available, the ecosystem's carbon uptake increases; therefore, the maximum
flux increase was observed in the nitrogen fertilization case (Table 4 and
Fig. 8). The study by Lin et al. (2021) focusing on maize and soybean
crops emphasized the importance of fertilization to improve crop growth, and
our study proves that with adequate fertilization, even the spring wheat in
the Indian region also grows well and the carbon uptake is higher. Nitrogen
fertilization was consistent over the decades, leading to a constant rise in
GPP. However, the variation in GPP in the 2000s was the least (Fig. 7)
influenced by high temperatures during this decade (Fig. S4). A similar
pattern of low variation was observed in NEP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and NEP during this
period. The spatial variation across wheat-growing regions in the impact of
nitrogen fertilization reveals the same pattern as seen in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
However, the impact on carbon fluxes is more significant due to nitrogen
fertilization than CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. A higher impact was observed in the IGP and
adjoining regions, which are highly cultivated and irrigated. The results
show that using nitrogen fertilization improves the carbon uptake by
spring wheat, in line with  earlier studies (Jain et al., 2009; Luo et
al., 2006).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3614">The impact of each driver (TgC yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) on various fluxes of the
spring
wheat crop in India. The values show the slope, giving the linear trend of
individual fluxes. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> The trend has a significance level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Driver</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GPP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NPP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NEP</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.597<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.159<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.438<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.185<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.278<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">[CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.805<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.201<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.597<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.175<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.422<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nitrogen fertilization</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.897<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.231<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.666<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.197<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.468<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Water</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.243</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.062</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.182</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.173</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.01</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><?xmltex \gdef\@currentlabel{4}?></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3962">The impact of water added to the crop led to an annual increase of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 TgC in GPP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5 TgC in NPP,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 TgC in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 TgC in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
reason for
the small trend was  the fluxes increasing through the 1980s, 1990s, and
2000s but declining in the 2010s. The decline in the 2010s was due to less
water availability for the crops during this period, as shown in Fig. S4d,
hence affecting the trends in the fluxes (Table 4). The higher GPP,
NPP, and NEE in the 2000s compared to the 1990s, even though the
temperatures were<?pagebreak page926?> higher in the 2000s, suggests that the adverse effects of
high temperatures can be overcome if the crops are provided with enough
water. Studies like Hatfield and Prueger (2015) and Green et al. (2019)
explored the impact of water availability in terrestrial ecosystems on
carbon fluxes. They concluded that higher water availability improves the
carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems. The spatial variation analysis
(Fig. 8) shows that the higher water availability in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> run
caused higher carbon uptake throughout the wheat-growing regions. The
highest impact is observed in the northwestern regions of the country
(Punjab and Haryana), which are highly irrigated, and most of the crop water
requirements are met through irrigation. However, the stippling, which shows
if a region has a significant trend over the 36 years, reveals that most
wheat-growing regions do not have a significant increasing or decreasing
trend. Nevertheless, the impact of adequate water causing higher carbon
uptake by spring wheat is evident in Fig. 8.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e4036">ISAM simulations, particularly numerical experiments examining the effects
of temperature, [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], nitrogen fertilization, and irrigation, revealed
some
intriguing features of India's spring wheat agroecosystem. All the fluxes
follow a similar pattern of a high rise from the 1980s to the 1990s, a
slight increase from the 1990s to the 2000s, and a steep rise from the 2000s
to the 2010s (Fig. 5b). The [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] and nitrogen fertilization increased
throughout the study, whereas temperature and irrigation varied irregularly
(Fig. S4). The impact of [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] as measured by the difference between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> highlighted that with higher [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>],
the carbon taken
up by wheat increases, and the overall ecosystem exchange from croplands is
more significant than in the low [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] case. The findings from the spring
wheat agroecosystem align with studies such as Yoshimoto et al. (2005) and
Saha et al. (2020), who studied broader ecosystems. During the 2000s,
there was a sudden drop in fluxes (Fig. 5a), which coincided with the
higher temperature anomaly of 1.43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Fig. S4a). Patel et al. (2021)
also found a negative relationship between NEP and temperature, owing
to higher respiratory losses at higher temperatures. Sonkar et al. (2019)
and Koehler et al. (2013) reported similar behavior of spring wheat in
warmer temperatures. However, the added water during the 2000s mitigated the
negative impact of higher temperatures, as evidenced by the positive impact
of water observed during this decade (Fig. 7a–d). The positive impact
of water in the 2000s is more significant than in the 1990s, despite the
temperature anomaly in the 2000s being 1.43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C compared to
0.67 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
in the 1990s. Therefore, the study suggests that providing adequate water
through irrigation can mitigate the adverse effects of high temperatures.</p>
      <p id="d1e4138">Our spatial variation analysis of carbon fluxes and the impact of climate
variables and management practices shows that the most significant carbon uptake
by spring wheat is from the IGP and the northwestern regions. This is because these
regions are highly cultivated and irrigated, and they are the major wheat
producers of India. Interestingly, the effect of nitrogen fertilization on
carbon fluxes was high among all the variables considered. Irrigation was
another critical factor affecting crop growth and carbon fluxes. The
experiments with detrended temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Temp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) revealed that the
crops'
sowing date and growing lengths are affected by temperature variation
(Figs. S6 and S7). The growing season is shorter by nearly a week to
2 weeks in  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, reducing the carbon fluxes during the growing
season
(Fig. 8). The dynamic sowing date does an excellent job of adjusting to
the changes in climatic variables like temperature and precipitation
(Figs. S3 and  S5a, d). The drivers for decision-making in the
sowing of crops by the farmers in India are mainly temperature and rainfall.
Therefore, building a model replicating human decisions will play a crucial
role in analyzing the impacts of future climate on spring wheat.</p>
      <p id="d1e4163">The simulated carbon fluxes are comparable to published values. The
cumulative GPP and NEP for the wheat-growing season observed at the
Saharanpur site are 621  and 192 gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Patel
et al., 2021). The GPP and NEP values simulated at the IARI site are
729.9  and 523.3 gC m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Although the GPP is comparable
with Patel
et al. (2021), NEP values simulated by ISAM are not in the same range. The
higher NEP is because the ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to GPP is low in our case
compared to
many studies on spring wheat. Amthor and Baldocchi (2001) reported a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> GPP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3–0.6 for crops like wheat. Our value of 0.26 is
slightly lower than that. Many studies (Table S2) report an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
value of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 GPP. These are all winter wheat with a vernalization
period and a growing length of more than 200 d; in our case, it hardly
exceeds 150 d. Interestingly, Zhang et al. (2020), who reported
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values
like ours, also consider full irrigation<?pagebreak page927?> like our study, while the other
studies do not consider irrigation. Comparing the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> GPP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> we
observed that the value is 0.3 and in the range proposed by Amthor and
Baldocchi (2001). Therefore, our findings prove that  highly irrigated
fields will have lower respiration losses.</p>
      <p id="d1e4296">Additional research is needed to address some of the study's limitations.
The model evaluation is very important for studies like this. Multiyear
data from multiple stations across the study domain should be used for
evaluation. We built a dataset for spring wheat consisting of crop phenology
and yield for nine sites and 26 growing seasons. The crop phenology and
yield data are used to evaluate the model. However, carbon flux observations
from cropland in India are not publicly available. We evaluated the carbon
fluxes simulated by ISAM using data from three experimental agricultural
sites in northern India. Even though the model evaluation was suboptimal
regarding carbon fluxes, this study is a step in the right direction because
it is the first to use site-scale observations to evaluate all terrestrial
carbon fluxes simulated by a process-based model.</p>
      <p id="d1e4300">Second, we estimated the effect of water availability on carbon fluxes by
comparing the control simulation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CON</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where the crops do not
experience any water stress, with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Water</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> simulation, where no
irrigation is applied. The best way to understand the effect of irrigation
would be to conduct simulations driven by actual irrigation data. For this
purpose, we need a gridded irrigation time series dataset. Unfortunately,
such data do not exist
(Gahlot et al.,
2020) or are unrealistic in magnitude and timing
(Mathur and AchutaRao, 2020). Many studies
show that using different cultivars can change spring wheat yield, but there
are no studies on the effects on carbon fluxes. Thus, studying the impact of
cultivars on carbon fluxes is an exciting and open question. This effect was
not incorporated into our study. The spatiotemporal maps of cultivar use and
site-scale carbon flux and phenology data for various cultivars will take
a lot of work to develop. The community should strive to create such datasets to
better understand and simulate different cultivars' effects.</p>
      <p id="d1e4325">Finally, our simulations were run with a land model driven by externally
imposed forcings. We ignored the feedback between the land surface and the
atmosphere, which can be significant, especially for natural drivers like
[CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] and temperature. The next step would be to use a coupled
land–atmosphere model that includes feedback between the terrestrial and
atmospheric components of the carbon cycle.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4346">We used ISAM  equipped with a spring wheat module to study the
carbon fluxes in spring wheat agroecosystems across the wheat-growing
regions of India for the last 4 decades. The ISAM spring wheat module
ISAM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dyn</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">wheat</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> simulated the temporal patterns of GPP,
TER, and NEP at the site scale for the IARI experimental wheat farm. The
main conclusions from this study are as follows.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4365">Carbon fluxes in spring wheat agroecosystems varied widely across the
country due to divergent climatic conditions and management practices,
primarily due to differences in planting dates. While the central and
eastern parts of the spring wheat-growing regions showed high carbon fluxes
during January, the northern parts exhibited their maximum carbon flux
values during March.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4369">The effects of increasing [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>], nitrogen fertilization, and
irrigation
led to positive trends in carbon fluxes in the last 4 decades. Nitrogen
fertilization had the strongest effects, followed by [CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>] and water
availability. Providing sufficient fertilizers and water through irrigation
may counteract the adverse effects of high temperatures.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4391">The limitation on water available through irrigation in the future in
regions like Punjab and Haryana might adversely affect the spring wheat
growth and, as a result, the carbon fluxes from this agroecosystem.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e4394">Understanding the variability in terrestrial carbon fluxes is essential for
understanding the carbon cycle. Agroecosystems cover large parts of the
terrestrial biosphere, with the spring wheat agroecosystem being one of
India's most extensive land use types. This paper is one of the first
long-term regional-scale studies to examine carbon dynamics in an Indian
agroecosystem. After appropriate calibration, the model developed in this
study can also be used to study other agroecosystems. Very importantly, it
can serve as a tool to conduct numerical experiments to study future
scenarios and the effects of external drivers. Thus, this study will likely
be crucial in advancing our understanding of terrestrial carbon dynamics and
our ability to simulate their behavior.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4401">The site-scale observations measured at IARI, New Delhi,
and the ISAM-simulated carbon flux data are available at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5833742" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5833742</ext-link> (Reddy et al., 2022). Site-scale crop phenology and yield
data for spring wheat for the period 2000–2020 are available on request.
These data will be part of a larger dataset covering more sites over the
1970–2020 period that we are currently preparing and will be made available
in the public domain later this year.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e4407">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-915-2023-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-915-2023-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4416">SG, SBR, and KNR conceptualized the study, SG and KNR
conducted the
simulations, VKS collected data at the IARI site, GuVV  and GaV compiled the site-scale
crop database, KNR and SG analyzed the data, KNR wrote the paper, and
SBR edited the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4422">The contact author has declared that none of the authors
has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e4428">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4434">Scientific color
maps (Crameri et al., 2018) are used in this study to prevent visual
distortion of the data and exclusion of readers with color-vision
deficiencies (Crameri et al., 2020).</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4439">Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma and Vangala Gayatri were partially supported
by the Indian Space Research Organisation via
grant no. ISRO-GBP: CAP(ASP) E303A20AD304</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4445">This paper was edited by Anping Chen and reviewed by X. Wang
and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Amthor, J. S. and Baldocchi, D. D.: Terrestrial Higher Plant Respiration
and Net Primary Production, Terr. Glob. Product., 33–59,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50004-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50004-1</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Baldocchi, D., Chu, H., and Reichstein, M.: Inter-annual variability of net
and gross ecosystem carbon fluxes: A review, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 249,
520–533, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.05.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.05.015</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Banger, K., Tian, H., Tao, B., Ren, W., Pan, S., Dangal, S., and Yang, J.:
Terrestrial net primary productivity in India during 1901–2010:
Contributions from multiple environmental changes, Climatic Change, 132,
575–588, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1448-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-015-1448-5</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chuine, I. and Régnière, J.: Process-Based Models of Phenology for
Plants and Animals, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 48, 159–182,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022706" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022706</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Crameri, F.: Scientific color maps, Zenodo,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1243862" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1243862</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Crameri, F., Shephard, G. E., and Heron, P. J.: The misuse of color in
science communication, Nat. Commun., 11, 5444,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dentener, F. J.: Global Maps of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition, 1860, 1993,
and 2050, ORNL DAAC [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/830" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3334/ORNLDAAC/830</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, FAOSTAT,
<uri>http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC</uri> (last access: 1 August 2023), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gahlot, S.: Terrestrial carbon fluxes in India with a focus on spring wheat
agroecosystems, Ph.D. thesis, Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology Delhi, India, IIT Delhi, 169 pp., <uri>http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/handle/2074/8745?show=full</uri> (last access: 2 September 2023), 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gahlot, S., Shu, S., Jain, A. K., and Baidya Roy, S.: Estimating Trends and
Variation of Net Biome Productivity in India for 1980–2012 Using a Land
Surface Model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11573–11579,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075777" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL075777</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gahlot, S., Lin, T. S., Jain, A. K., Baidya Roy, S., Sehgal, V. K., and
Dhakar, R.: Impact of environmental changes and land management practices on
wheat production in India, Earth. Syst. Dynam., 11, 641–652,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-641-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esd-11-641-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Golyandina, N. and Zhigljavsky, A.: Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time
Series, Springer Briefs in Statistics, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34913-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-642-34913-3</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Green, J. K., Seneviratne, S. I., Berg, A. M., Findell, K. L., Hagemann, S.,
Lawrence, D. M., and Gentine P.: Large influence of soil moisture on
long-term
terrestrial carbon uptake, Nature, 565, 476–479,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hatfield, J. L. and Prueger, J. H.: Temperature extremes: Effect on plant
growth and development, Weather  Clim. Extrem., 10, 4–10,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L. P., Frolking, S., Betts, R. A., Feddema, J.,
Fischer, G., Fisk, J. P., Hibbard, K., Houghton, R. A., Janetos, A., Jones, C.
D., Kindermann, G., Kinoshita, T., Goldewijk, K. K., Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E.,
Smith, S., Stehfest, E., Thomson, A., Thornton, P., van Vuuren, D. P., and Wang,
Y. P.: Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600
years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and
resulting secondary lands, Climatic Change, 109, 117–161,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jain, A. K. and Yang, X.: Modeling the effects of two different land cover
change data sets on the carbon stocks of plants and soils in concert with CO
2 and climate change, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, 20,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002349" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GB002349</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jain, A., Yang, X., Kheshgi, H., McGuire, A. D., Post, W., and Kicklighter,
D.: Nitrogen attenuation of terrestrial carbon cycle response to global
environmental factors, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB4028,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003519" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GB003519</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jones, J. W., Antle, J. M., Basso, B., Boote, K. J., Conant, R. T., Foster,
I., Charles, J. G. H., Herrero, M., Richard, E. H., Sander, J., Brian, A.
K., Munoz-Carpena, R., Porter, C. H., Rosenzweig, C., and Wheeler, T. R.:
Brief history of agricultural systems modeling, Agr. Syst., 155, 240–254,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Koehler, A. K., Challinor, A. J., Hawkins, E., and Asseng, S.: Influences of
increasing temperature on Indian wheat: quantifying limits to
predictability, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034016,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034016</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kumar, A., Bhatia, A., Sehgal, V. K., Tomer, R., Jain, N., and Pathak, H.:
Net Ecosystem Exchange of Carbon Dioxide in Rice-Spring Wheat System of
Northwestern Indo-Gangetic Plains, Land, 10, 701,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070701" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/land10070701</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck,
J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P.,
Canadell, J. G., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bopp,
L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Doney, S. C., Gkritzalis, T.,
Goll, D. S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Hoffman, F. M., Hoppema, M., Houghton,
R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Johannessen, T., Jones, C. D.,
Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Goldewijk, K. K., Landschützer, P.,
Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Munro, D.
R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., Neill, C., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Patra,
P., Peregon<?pagebreak page929?>, A., Peters, W., Peylin, P., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter,
B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rocher, M., Rödenbeck, C.,
Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff,
T., Sutton, A., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van
der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P.,
Wiltshire, A. J., Wright, R., Zaehle, S., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon
Budget 2018, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lin, T., Song, Y., Lawrence, P., Kheshgi, H. S., and Jain, A. K.: Worldwide
Maize and Soybean Yield Response to Environmental and Management Factors
Over the 20th and 21st Centuries, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo.,
126, e2021JG006304,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006304" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021JG006304</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lokupitiya, E., Denning, A. S., Schaefer, K., Ricciuto, D., Anderson, R.,
Arain, M. A., Baker, I., Barr, A. G., Chen, G., Chen, J. M., Ciais, P.,
Cook, D. R., Dietze, M. C., El Maayar, M., Fischer, M., Grant, R.,
Hollinger, D., Izaurralde, C., Jain, A., Kucharik, C. J., Li, Z., Liu, S.,
Li, L., Matamala, R., Peylin, P., Price, D., Running, S. W., Sahoo, A.,
Sprintsin, M., Suyker, A.E., Tian, H., Tonitto, C., Torn, M. S., Verbeeck,
H., Verma, S. B., and Xue, Y.: Carbon and energy fluxes in cropland
ecosystems:
a model-data comparison, Biogeochemistry, 129, 53–76,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-016-0219-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-016-0219-3</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Luo, Y., Hui, D., and Zhang, D.: Elevated CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> stimulates net accumulations
of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: a meta-analysis, Ecology, 87,
53–63, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1724" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1890/04-1724</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>MAFW: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture,
Govt. of India, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2016,
<uri>https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/Glance-2016.pdf</uri> (last access: 1 August 2023), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mathur, R. and AchutaRao, K.: A modelling exploration of the sensitivity of
the India's climate to irrigation, Clim. Dynam., 54, 1851–1872,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-019-05090-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/S00382-019-05090-8</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>MOA: Status paper on wheat, Directorate of Wheat Development Ministry of
Agriculture Govt. of India 180 pp.,
<uri>https://www.nfsm.gov.in/StatusPaper/Wheat2016.pdf</uri> (last access: 14 May
2021),
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet: 2.
Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net
primary production in the year 2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, 1022,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GB002947</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., and
Foley, J. A.: Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management,
Nature, 490, 254–257, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature11420</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ortiz, R., Sayre, K. D., Govaerts, B., Gupta, R., Subbarao, G. V., Ban, T.,
Hodson, D., Dixon, J. M., Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I., and Reynolds, M.: Climate
change: Can wheat beat the heat?, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 126, 46–58,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.019</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Patel, N. R., Dadhwal, V. K., and Saha, S. K.: Measurement and Scaling of
Carbon Dioxide (CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) Exchanges in Wheat Using Flux-Tower and Remote
Sensing,
J. Indian. Soc. Remote., 39, 383–391, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0107-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s12524-011-0107-1</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Patel, N. R, Pokhariyal, S., Chauhan, P., and Dadhwal, V. K.: Dynamics of
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
fluxes and controlling environmental factors in sugarcane (C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)–wheat
(C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
ecosystem of dry sub-humid region in India, Int. J. Biometeorol., 65,
1069–1084, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02088-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00484-021-02088-y</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ramadas, S., Kiran Kumar, T. M., and Pratap Singh, G.: Wheat Production in
India: Trends and Prospects, Recent Advances in Grain Crops Research, Intech
Open, London, United Kingdom, 156–172, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86341" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5772/intechopen.86341</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Reddy, K. N., Gahlot, S., Baidya Roy, S., and Sehgal, V. K.: Carbon fluxes
data over Indian spring wheat agro-ecosystem, Zenodo [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5833742" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5833742</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ren, X., Weitzel, M., O'Neill, B. C., Lawrence, P., Meiyappan, P., Levis,
S., Balistreri, E. J., and Dalton, M..: Avoided economic impacts of
climate change on agriculture: integrating a land surface model (CLM) with a
global economic model (iPETS), Climatic Change, 146, 517–531,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1791-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-016-1791-1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Revill, A., Emmel, C., D'Odorico, P., Buchmann, N., Hörtnagl, L., and
Eugster, W.: Estimating cropland carbon fluxes: A process-based model
evaluation at a Swiss crop-rotation site, Field Crops Res., 234,
95–106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.006</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Saha, S., Das, B., Chatterjee, D., Sehgal, V. K., Chakraborty, D., and Pal,
M.: Crop growth responses towards elevated atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, Plant
Ecophysiology and Adaptation under Climate Change: Mechanisms
and Perspectives I, edited by: Hasanuzzaman, M.,
Springer Nature, Singapore, 147–198,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2156-0_6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-981-15-2156-0_6</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sándor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Grace, P., Recous, S., Smith, P., Snow, V.,
Soussana, J-F, Basso, B., Bhatia, A., Brilli L., Doltra, J., Dorich, C. D.,
Doro, L., Fitton, N., Grant B, Harrison, M. T., Kirschbaum, M. U. F.,
Klumpp, K., Laville, P., Léonard, J., Martin R., Massad, R., Moore, A.,
Myrgiotis V., Pattey, E., Rolinski, S., Sharp, J., Skiba, U., Smith, W., Wu,
L., Zhang, Q., and Bellocchi, G.: Ensemble modelling of carbon fluxes in
grasslands and croplands, Field Crops Res., 252, 107791,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107791" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107791</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schmid, H. P.: Source areas for scalars and scalar fluxes, Bound-Lay.
Meteorol., 67, 293–318, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00713146" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00713146</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Song, Y., Jain, A. K., and McIsaac, G. F.: Implementation of dynamic crop
growth processes into a land surface model: Evaluation of energy, water and
carbon fluxes under corn and soybean rotation, Biogeosciences, 10,
8039–8066, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-8039-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-8039-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sonkar, G., Mall, R. K., Banerjee, T., Singh, N., Kumar, T. V. L., and
Chand, R.: Vulnerability of Indian wheat against rising temperature and
aerosols, Environ. Pollut., 254, 112946,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.114" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.114</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Viovy, N.: CRUNCEP Version 7 – Atmospheric Forcing Data for the Community
Land Model, Research Data Archive at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/PZ8F-F017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/PZ8F-F017</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Willmott, C. J., Robeson, S. M., and Matsuura, K.: A refined index of model
performance, Int. J. Climatol., 32, 2088–2094,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/JOC.2419" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/JOC.2419</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yang, X., Wittig, V., Jain, A. K., and Post, W.: Integration of nitrogen
cycle dynamics into the Integrated Science Assessment Model for the study of
terrestrial ecosystem responses to global change, Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
23, 121–149,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003474" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GB003474</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page930?><ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yoshimoto, M., Oue, H., and Kobayashi, K.: Energy balance and water use
efficiency of rice canopies under free-air CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> enrichment, Agr. Forest
Meteorol., 133, 226–246,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.09.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.09.010</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Carbon fluxes in spring wheat agroecosystem in India</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Amthor, J. S. and Baldocchi, D. D.: Terrestrial Higher Plant Respiration
and Net Primary Production, Terr. Glob. Product., 33–59,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50004-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50004-1</a>, 2001.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      
Baldocchi, D., Chu, H., and Reichstein, M.: Inter-annual variability of net
and gross ecosystem carbon fluxes: A review, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 249,
520–533, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.05.015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.05.015</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      
Banger, K., Tian, H., Tao, B., Ren, W., Pan, S., Dangal, S., and Yang, J.:
Terrestrial net primary productivity in India during 1901–2010:
Contributions from multiple environmental changes, Climatic Change, 132,
575–588, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1448-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1448-5</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chuine, I. and Régnière, J.: Process-Based Models of Phenology for
Plants and Animals, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 48, 159–182,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022706" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022706</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      
Crameri, F.: Scientific color maps, Zenodo,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1243862" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1243862</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      
Crameri, F., Shephard, G. E., and Heron, P. J.: The misuse of color in
science communication, Nat. Commun., 11, 5444,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      
Dentener, F. J.: Global Maps of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition, 1860, 1993,
and 2050, ORNL DAAC [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/830" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/830</a>, 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      
FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, FAOSTAT,
<a href="http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC" target="_blank"/> (last access: 1 August 2023), 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gahlot, S.: Terrestrial carbon fluxes in India with a focus on spring wheat
agroecosystems, Ph.D. thesis, Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology Delhi, India, IIT Delhi, 169 pp., <a href="http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/handle/2074/8745?show=full" target="_blank"/> (last access: 2 September 2023), 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gahlot, S., Shu, S., Jain, A. K., and Baidya Roy, S.: Estimating Trends and
Variation of Net Biome Productivity in India for 1980–2012 Using a Land
Surface Model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11573–11579,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075777" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075777</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gahlot, S., Lin, T. S., Jain, A. K., Baidya Roy, S., Sehgal, V. K., and
Dhakar, R.: Impact of environmental changes and land management practices on
wheat production in India, Earth. Syst. Dynam., 11, 641–652,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-641-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-641-2020</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      
Golyandina, N. and Zhigljavsky, A.: Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time
Series, Springer Briefs in Statistics, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34913-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34913-3</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      
Green, J. K., Seneviratne, S. I., Berg, A. M., Findell, K. L., Hagemann, S.,
Lawrence, D. M., and Gentine P.: Large influence of soil moisture on
long-term
terrestrial carbon uptake, Nature, 565, 476–479,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hatfield, J. L. and Prueger, J. H.: Temperature extremes: Effect on plant
growth and development, Weather  Clim. Extrem., 10, 4–10,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L. P., Frolking, S., Betts, R. A., Feddema, J.,
Fischer, G., Fisk, J. P., Hibbard, K., Houghton, R. A., Janetos, A., Jones, C.
D., Kindermann, G., Kinoshita, T., Goldewijk, K. K., Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E.,
Smith, S., Stehfest, E., Thomson, A., Thornton, P., van Vuuren, D. P., and Wang,
Y. P.: Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600
years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and
resulting secondary lands, Climatic Change, 109, 117–161,
2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jain, A. K. and Yang, X.: Modeling the effects of two different land cover
change data sets on the carbon stocks of plants and soils in concert with CO
2 and climate change, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, 20,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002349" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002349</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jain, A., Yang, X., Kheshgi, H., McGuire, A. D., Post, W., and Kicklighter,
D.: Nitrogen attenuation of terrestrial carbon cycle response to global
environmental factors, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB4028,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003519" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003519</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jones, J. W., Antle, J. M., Basso, B., Boote, K. J., Conant, R. T., Foster,
I., Charles, J. G. H., Herrero, M., Richard, E. H., Sander, J., Brian, A.
K., Munoz-Carpena, R., Porter, C. H., Rosenzweig, C., and Wheeler, T. R.:
Brief history of agricultural systems modeling, Agr. Syst., 155, 240–254,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      
Koehler, A. K., Challinor, A. J., Hawkins, E., and Asseng, S.: Influences of
increasing temperature on Indian wheat: quantifying limits to
predictability, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034016,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034016</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kumar, A., Bhatia, A., Sehgal, V. K., Tomer, R., Jain, N., and Pathak, H.:
Net Ecosystem Exchange of Carbon Dioxide in Rice-Spring Wheat System of
Northwestern Indo-Gangetic Plains, Land, 10, 701,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070701" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070701</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck,
J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P.,
Canadell, J. G., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bopp,
L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Doney, S. C., Gkritzalis, T.,
Goll, D. S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Hoffman, F. M., Hoppema, M., Houghton,
R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Johannessen, T., Jones, C. D.,
Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Goldewijk, K. K., Landschützer, P.,
Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Munro, D.
R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., Neill, C., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Patra,
P., Peregon, A., Peters, W., Peylin, P., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter,
B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rocher, M., Rödenbeck, C.,
Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff,
T., Sutton, A., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van
der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P.,
Wiltshire, A. J., Wright, R., Zaehle, S., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon
Budget 2018, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lin, T., Song, Y., Lawrence, P., Kheshgi, H. S., and Jain, A. K.: Worldwide
Maize and Soybean Yield Response to Environmental and Management Factors
Over the 20th and 21st Centuries, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo.,
126, e2021JG006304,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006304" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006304</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lokupitiya, E., Denning, A. S., Schaefer, K., Ricciuto, D., Anderson, R.,
Arain, M. A., Baker, I., Barr, A. G., Chen, G., Chen, J. M., Ciais, P.,
Cook, D. R., Dietze, M. C., El Maayar, M., Fischer, M., Grant, R.,
Hollinger, D., Izaurralde, C., Jain, A., Kucharik, C. J., Li, Z., Liu, S.,
Li, L., Matamala, R., Peylin, P., Price, D., Running, S. W., Sahoo, A.,
Sprintsin, M., Suyker, A.E., Tian, H., Tonitto, C., Torn, M. S., Verbeeck,
H., Verma, S. B., and Xue, Y.: Carbon and energy fluxes in cropland
ecosystems:
a model-data comparison, Biogeochemistry, 129, 53–76,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-016-0219-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-016-0219-3</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      
Luo, Y., Hui, D., and Zhang, D.: Elevated CO<sub>2</sub> stimulates net accumulations
of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: a meta-analysis, Ecology, 87,
53–63, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1724" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1724</a>, 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      
MAFW: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture,
Govt. of India, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2016,
<a href="https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/Glance-2016.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 1 August 2023), 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mathur, R. and AchutaRao, K.: A modelling exploration of the sensitivity of
the India's climate to irrigation, Clim. Dynam., 54, 1851–1872,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-019-05090-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-019-05090-8</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      
MOA: Status paper on wheat, Directorate of Wheat Development Ministry of
Agriculture Govt. of India 180 pp.,
<a href="https://www.nfsm.gov.in/StatusPaper/Wheat2016.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 14 May
2021),
2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet: 2.
Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net
primary production in the year 2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, 1022,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., and
Foley, J. A.: Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management,
Nature, 490, 254–257, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ortiz, R., Sayre, K. D., Govaerts, B., Gupta, R., Subbarao, G. V., Ban, T.,
Hodson, D., Dixon, J. M., Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I., and Reynolds, M.: Climate
change: Can wheat beat the heat?, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 126, 46–58,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.019</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      
Patel, N. R., Dadhwal, V. K., and Saha, S. K.: Measurement and Scaling of
Carbon Dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) Exchanges in Wheat Using Flux-Tower and Remote
Sensing,
J. Indian. Soc. Remote., 39, 383–391, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0107-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0107-1</a>,
2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      
Patel, N. R, Pokhariyal, S., Chauhan, P., and Dadhwal, V. K.: Dynamics of
CO<sub>2</sub>
fluxes and controlling environmental factors in sugarcane (C<sub>4</sub>)–wheat
(C<sub>3</sub>)
ecosystem of dry sub-humid region in India, Int. J. Biometeorol., 65,
1069–1084, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02088-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02088-y</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ramadas, S., Kiran Kumar, T. M., and Pratap Singh, G.: Wheat Production in
India: Trends and Prospects, Recent Advances in Grain Crops Research, Intech
Open, London, United Kingdom, 156–172, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86341" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86341</a>,
2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      
Reddy, K. N., Gahlot, S., Baidya Roy, S., and Sehgal, V. K.: Carbon fluxes
data over Indian spring wheat agro-ecosystem, Zenodo [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5833742" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5833742</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ren, X., Weitzel, M., O'Neill, B. C., Lawrence, P., Meiyappan, P., Levis,
S., Balistreri, E. J., and Dalton, M..: Avoided economic impacts of
climate change on agriculture: integrating a land surface model (CLM) with a
global economic model (iPETS), Climatic Change, 146, 517–531,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1791-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1791-1</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      
Revill, A., Emmel, C., D'Odorico, P., Buchmann, N., Hörtnagl, L., and
Eugster, W.: Estimating cropland carbon fluxes: A process-based model
evaluation at a Swiss crop-rotation site, Field Crops Res., 234,
95–106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.006</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      
Saha, S., Das, B., Chatterjee, D., Sehgal, V. K., Chakraborty, D., and Pal,
M.: Crop growth responses towards elevated atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, Plant
Ecophysiology and Adaptation under Climate Change: Mechanisms
and Perspectives I, edited by: Hasanuzzaman, M.,
Springer Nature, Singapore, 147–198,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2156-0_6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2156-0_6</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sándor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Grace, P., Recous, S., Smith, P., Snow, V.,
Soussana, J-F, Basso, B., Bhatia, A., Brilli L., Doltra, J., Dorich, C. D.,
Doro, L., Fitton, N., Grant B, Harrison, M. T., Kirschbaum, M. U. F.,
Klumpp, K., Laville, P., Léonard, J., Martin R., Massad, R., Moore, A.,
Myrgiotis V., Pattey, E., Rolinski, S., Sharp, J., Skiba, U., Smith, W., Wu,
L., Zhang, Q., and Bellocchi, G.: Ensemble modelling of carbon fluxes in
grasslands and croplands, Field Crops Res., 252, 107791,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107791" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107791</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      
Schmid, H. P.: Source areas for scalars and scalar fluxes, Bound-Lay.
Meteorol., 67, 293–318, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00713146" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00713146</a>, 1994.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      
Song, Y., Jain, A. K., and McIsaac, G. F.: Implementation of dynamic crop
growth processes into a land surface model: Evaluation of energy, water and
carbon fluxes under corn and soybean rotation, Biogeosciences, 10,
8039–8066, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-8039-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-8039-2013</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sonkar, G., Mall, R. K., Banerjee, T., Singh, N., Kumar, T. V. L., and
Chand, R.: Vulnerability of Indian wheat against rising temperature and
aerosols, Environ. Pollut., 254, 112946,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.114" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.114</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      
Viovy, N.: CRUNCEP Version 7 – Atmospheric Forcing Data for the Community
Land Model, Research Data Archive at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5065/PZ8F-F017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5065/PZ8F-F017</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      
Willmott, C. J., Robeson, S. M., and Matsuura, K.: A refined index of model
performance, Int. J. Climatol., 32, 2088–2094,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/JOC.2419" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/JOC.2419</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yang, X., Wittig, V., Jain, A. K., and Post, W.: Integration of nitrogen
cycle dynamics into the Integrated Science Assessment Model for the study of
terrestrial ecosystem responses to global change, Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
23, 121–149,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003474" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003474</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yoshimoto, M., Oue, H., and Kobayashi, K.: Energy balance and water use
efficiency of rice canopies under free-air CO<sub>2</sub> enrichment, Agr. Forest
Meteorol., 133, 226–246,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.09.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.09.010</a>, 2005.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
