Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1019-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1019-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
06 Aug 2024
Research article |
| 06 Aug 2024
| 06 Aug 2024
Contrasting responses of vegetation productivity to intraseasonal rainfall in Earth system models
National Centre for Earth Observation, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
Tristan Quaife
National Centre for Earth Observation, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Christopher M. Taylor
National Centre for Earth Observation, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
Phil P. Harris
National Centre for Earth Observation, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
Related authors
No articles found.
Richard Essery, Giulia Mazzotti, Sarah Barr, Tobias Jonas, Tristan Quaife, and Nick Rutter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2546, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2546, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
How forests influence accumulation and melt of snow on the ground is of long-standing interest, but uncertainty remains in how best to model forest snow processes. We developed the Flexible Snow Model version 2 to quantify these uncertainties. In a first model demonstration, how unloading of intercepted snow from the forest canopy is represented is responsible for the largest uncertainty. Global mapping of forest distribution is also likely to be a large source of uncertainty in existing models.
Wolfgang Knorr, Matthew Williams, Tea Thum, Thomas Kaminski, Michael Voßbeck, Marko Scholze, Tristan Quaife, Luke Smallmann, Susan Steele-Dunne, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Tim Green, Sönke Zähle, Mika Aurela, Alexandre Bouvet, Emanuel Bueechi, Wouter Dorigo, Tarek El-Madany, Mirco Migliavacca, Marika Honkanen, Yann Kerr, Anna Kontu, Juha Lemmetyinen, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Arnaud Mialon, Tuuli Miinalainen, Gaetan Pique, Amanda Ojasalo, Shaun Quegan, Peter Rayner, Pablo Reyes-Muñoz, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Mike Schwank, Jochem Verrelst, Songyan Zhu, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Matthias Drusch
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1534, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1534, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
When it comes to climate change, the land surfaces are where the vast majority of impacts happen. The task of monitoring those across the globe is formidable and must necessarily rely on satellites – at a significant cost: the measurements are only indirect and require comprehensive physical understanding. We have created a comprehensive modelling system that we offer to the research community to explore how satellite data can be better exploited to help us see what changes on our lands.
Lee de Mora, Ranjini Swaminathan, Richard P. Allan, Jerry C. Blackford, Douglas I. Kelley, Phil Harris, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Spencer Liddicoat, Robert J. Parker, Tristan Quaife, Jeremy Walton, and Andrew Yool
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1295–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the flux of carbon from the atmosphere into the land surface and ocean for multiple models and over a range of future scenarios. We did this by comparing simulations after the same change in the global-mean near-surface temperature. Using this method, we show that the choice of scenario can impact the carbon allocation to the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Scenarios with higher emissions reach the same warming levels sooner, but also with relatively more carbon in the atmosphere.
Samantha Petch, Bo Dong, Tristan Quaife, Robert P. King, and Keith Haines
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1723–1744, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1723-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1723-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Gravitational measurements of water storage from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) can improve understanding of the water budget. We produce flux estimates over large river catchments based on observations that close the monthly water budget and ensure consistency with GRACE on short and long timescales. We use energy data to provide additional constraints and balance the long-term energy budget. These flux estimates are important for evaluating climate models.
Julia Crook, Cornelia Klein, Sonja Folwell, Christopher M. Taylor, Douglas J. Parker, Adama Bamba, and Kouakou Kouadio
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 229–248, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-229-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-229-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We estimate recent deforestation in West Africa and use a climate model allowing explicit convection to determine impacts on early season rainfall. We find enhanced rainfall over deforestation, in line with recent observational results, due to changes in circulation rather than humidity, showing potential for future studies. Local changes depend on initial soil moisture, deforestation extent, and ocean proximity, with sea breezes shifting inland where surface friction decreased.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, Doug B. Clark, Chris Huntingford, Christopher M. Taylor, Pier Luigi Vidale, Patrick C. McGuire, Markus Todt, Sonja Folwell, Valiyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and Belinda E. Medlyn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5567–5592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new representations of plant physiological processes into a land surface model. Including new biological understanding improves modelled carbon and water fluxes for the present in tropical and northern-latitude forests. Future climate simulations demonstrate the sensitivity of photosynthesis to temperature is important for modelling carbon cycle dynamics in a warming world. Accurate representation of these processes in models is necessary for robust predictions of climate change.
Ewan Pinnington, Javier Amezcua, Elizabeth Cooper, Simon Dadson, Rich Ellis, Jian Peng, Emma Robinson, Ross Morrison, Simon Osborne, and Tristan Quaife
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1617–1641, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1617-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1617-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models are important tools for translating meteorological forecasts and reanalyses into real-world impacts at the Earth's surface. We show that the hydrological predictions, in particular soil moisture, of these models can be improved by combining them with satellite observations from the NASA SMAP mission to update uncertain parameters. We find a 22 % reduction in error at a network of in situ soil moisture sensors after combining model predictions with satellite observations.
Ewan Pinnington, Tristan Quaife, Amos Lawless, Karina Williams, Tim Arkebauer, and Dave Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 55–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-55-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-55-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present LAVENDAR, a mathematical method for combining observations with models of the terrestrial environment. Here we use it to improve estimates of crop growth in the UK Met Office land surface model. However, the method is model agnostic, requires no modification to the underlying code and can be applied to any part of the model. In the example application we improve estimates of maize yield by 74 % by assimilating observations of leaf area, crop height and photosynthesis.
Mark F. Lunt, Paul I. Palmer, Liang Feng, Christopher M. Taylor, Hartmut Boesch, and Robert J. Parker
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14721–14740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14721-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14721-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Using data from the GOSAT satellite between 2010 and 2016 and a Bayesian inversion approach, we estimate monthly emissions of methane from tropical Africa. We find an increase in methane emissions during this period, driven in part by rising emissions from South Sudan. Using ancillary data we attribute this short-term emissions rise to an increase in the extent of the Sudd wetlands driven by increased outflow from the East African lakes.
Dagmawi Asfaw, Emily Black, Matthew Brown, Kathryn Jane Nicklin, Frederick Otu-Larbi, Ewan Pinnington, Andrew Challinor, Ross Maidment, and Tristan Quaife
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2353–2371, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2353-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2353-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
TAMSAT-ALERT is a framework for combining observational and forecast information into continually updated assessments of the likelihood of user-defined adverse events like low cumulative rainfall or lower than average crop yield. It is easy to use and flexible to accommodate any impact model that uses meteorological data. The results show that it can be used to monitor the meteorological impact on yield within a growing season and to test the value of routinely issued seasonal forecasts.
Ewan Pinnington, Tristan Quaife, and Emily Black
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2575–2588, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2575-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2575-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper combines satellite observations of precipitation and soil moisture to understand what key information they offer to improve land surface model estimates of soil moisture over Ghana. When both observations are combined with the chosen land surface model we reduce the unbiased root-mean-squared error in a 5-year model hindcast by 27 %; this bodes well for the production of improved soil moisture estimates over sub-Saharan Africa where subsistence farming remains prevalent.
Robin J. Hogan, Tristan Quaife, and Renato Braghiere
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 339–350, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-339-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-339-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a fast new method for calculating how much sunlight is absorbed and reflected by forests and other types of vegetation, rigorously taking account of the complex 3-D structure. Careful evaluation shows it to perform well even in difficult scenes with snow on the ground. The method is suitable for use within the computer models used to make weather and climate forecasts, where it has the potential to improve predictions of near-surface temperature and photosynthesis rates.
Karina Williams, Jemma Gornall, Anna Harper, Andy Wiltshire, Debbie Hemming, Tristan Quaife, Tim Arkebauer, and David Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1291–1320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1291-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1291-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This study looks in detail at how well the crop model within the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), a community land-surface model, is able to simulate irrigated maize in Nebraska. We use the results to point to future priorities for model development and describe how our methodology can be adapted to set up model runs for other sites and crop varieties.
F. Lohou, L. Kergoat, F. Guichard, A. Boone, B. Cappelaere, J.-M. Cohard, J. Demarty, S. Galle, M. Grippa, C. Peugeot, D. Ramier, C. M. Taylor, and F. Timouk
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 3883–3898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3883-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3883-2014, 2014
A. Loew, P. M. van Bodegom, J.-L. Widlowski, J. Otto, T. Quaife, B. Pinty, and T. Raddatz
Biogeosciences, 11, 1873–1897, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1873-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1873-2014, 2014
Cited articles
Alemohammad, S. H., Fang, B., Konings, A. G., Aires, F., Green, J. K., Kolassa, J., Miralles, D., Prigent, C., and Gentine, P.: Water, Energy, and Carbon with Artificial Neural Networks (WECANN): a statistically based estimate of global surface turbulent fluxes and gross primary productivity using solar-induced fluorescence, Biogeosciences, 14, 4101–4124, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4101-2017, 2017. a
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Beer, C., Ciais, P., Harper, A., Jones, C., Murray-Tortarolo, G., Papale, D., Parazoo, N. C., Peylin, P., Piao, S., Sitch, S., Viovy, N., Wiltshire, A., and Zhao, M.: Spatiotemporal patterns of terrestrial gross primary production: A review, Rev. Geophys., 53, 785–818, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000483, 2015. a, b, c, d, e
Bai, J., Zhang, H., Sun, R., Li, X., Xiao, J., and Wang, Y.: Estimation of global GPP from GOME-2 and OCO-2 SIF by considering the dynamic variations of GPP-SIF relationship, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 326, 109180, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2022.109180, 2022. a
Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E., and Berry, J. A.: A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions, in: Progress in Photosynthesis Research: Vol. 4, Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress on Photosynthesis Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 10–15 August 1986, edited by: Biggins, J., Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 221–224, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0519-6_48, 1987. a
Barnes, M. L., Farella, M. M., Scott, R. L., Moore, D. J., Ponce-Campos, G. E., Biederman, J. A., MacBean, N., Litvak, M. E., and Breshears, D. D.: Improved dryland carbon flux predictions with explicit consideration of water-carbon coupling, Communications Earth & Environment, 2, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00308-2, 2021. a
Beck, H. E., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Levizzani, V., Schellekens, J., Miralles, D. G., Martens, B., and de Roo, A.: MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25° global gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 589–615, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-589-2017, 2017. a
Bolton, D.: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature, Mon. Weather Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108%3C1046:TCOEPT%3E2.0.CO;2, 1980. a
Bonan, G. B., Williams, M., Fisher, R. A., and Oleson, K. W.: Modeling stomatal conductance in the earth system: linking leaf water-use efficiency and water transport along the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2193–2222, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2193-2014, 2014. a
Canadell, J., Monteiro, P., Costa, M., Cotrim da Cunha, L., Cox, P., Eliseev, A., Henson, S., Ishii, M., Jaccard, S., Koven, C., Lohila, A., Patra, P., Piao, S., Rogelj, J., Syampungani, S., Zaehle, S., and Zickfeld, K.: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 673–816, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.007, 2021. a
Chen, A., Mao, J., Ricciuto, D., Lu, D., Xiao, J., Li, X., Thornton, P. E., and Knapp, A. K.: Seasonal changes in GPP/SIF ratios and their climatic determinants across the Northern Hemisphere, Global Change Biol., 27, 5186–5197, https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15775, 2021. a
Chen, C., Riley, W. J., Prentice, I. C., and Keenan, T. F.: CO2 fertilization of terrestrial photosynthesis inferred from site to global scales, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2115627119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115627119, 2022. a
Copin, Y.: Taylor diagram for python/matplotlib (2018-12-06) [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5548061, 2012. a
Dorigo, W., Wagner, W., Albergel, C., Albrecht, F., Balsamo, G., Brocca, L., Chung, D., Ertl, M., Forkel, M., Gruber, A., Haas, E., Hamer, P. D., Hirschi, M., Ikonen, J., de Jeu, R., Kidd, R., Lahoz, W., Liu, Y. Y., Miralles, D., Mistelbauer, T., Nicolai-Shaw, N., Parinussa, R., Pratola, C., Reimer, C., van der Schalie, R., Seneviratne, S. I., Smolander, T., and Lecomte, P.: ESA CCI Soil Moisture for improved Earth system understanding: State-of-the art and future directions, Remote Sens. Environ., 203, 185–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSE.2017.07.001, 2017. a
Dorigo, W., Preimesberger, W., Moesinger, L., Pasik, A., Scanlon, T., Hahn, S., Van der Schalie, R., Van der Vliet, M., De Jeu, R., Kidd, R., Rodriguez-Fernandez, N., and Hirschi, M.: ESA Soil Moisture Climate Change Initiative (Soil_Moisture_cci): COMBINED product, Version 06.1, NERC EDS Centre for Environmental Data Analysis [data set], https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/43d73291472444e6b9c2d2420dbad7d6, 2021. a
Duveiller, G., Frankenberg, C., Filipponi, F., Walther, S., Köhler, P., Guanter, L., and Cescatti, A.: Downscaled GOME2 SIF. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [data set], https://doi.org/10.2905/21935FFC-B797-4BEE-94DA-8FEC85B3F9E1, 2019.
Duveiller, G., Filipponi, F., Walther, S., Köhler, P., Frankenberg, C., Guanter, L., and Cescatti, A.: A spatially downscaled sun-induced fluorescence global product for enhanced monitoring of vegetation productivity, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 1101–1116, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1101-2020, 2020. a, b
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Fernández-Martínez, M., Vicca, S., Janssens, I. A., Sardans, J., Luyssaert, S., Campioli, M., Chapin, F. S., Ciais, P., Malhi, Y., Obersteiner, M., Papale, D., Piao, S. L., Reichstein, M., Rodà, F., and Peñuelas, J.: Nutrient availability as the key regulator of global forest carbon balance, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 471–476, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2177, 2014. a
Frankenberg, C., Fisher, J. B., Worden, J., Badgley, G., Saatchi, S. S., Lee, J.-E., Toon, G. C., Butz, A., Jung, M., Kuze, A., and Yokota, T.: New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: Patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L17706, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048738, 2011. a
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2022, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022. a
Grossiord, C., Buckley, T. N., Cernusak, L. A., Novick, K. A., Poulter, B., Siegwolf, R. T., Sperry, J. S., and McDowell, N. G.: Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit, New Phytol., 226, 1550–1566, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16485, 2020. a
Gruber, A., Scanlon, T., van der Schalie, R., Wagner, W., and Dorigo, W.: Evolution of the ESA CCI Soil Moisture climate data records and their underlying merging methodology, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 717–739, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-717-2019, 2019. a
Guan, K., Good, S. P., Caylor, K. K., Sato, H., Wood, E. F., and Li, H.: Continental-scale impacts of intra-seasonal rainfall variability on simulated ecosystem responses in Africa, Biogeosciences, 11, 6939–6954, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6939-2014, 2014. a, b
Guan, K., Good, S. P., Caylor, K. K., Medvigy, D., Pan, M., Wood, E. F., Sato, H., Biasutti, M., Chen, M., Ahlström, A., and Xu, X.: Simulated sensitivity of African terrestrial ecosystem photosynthesis to rainfall frequency, intensity, and rainy season length, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 025013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AA9F30, 2018. a
Harper, A. B., Williams, K. E., McGuire, P. C., Duran Rojas, M. C., Hemming, D., Verhoef, A., Huntingford, C., Rowland, L., Marthews, T., Breder Eller, C., Mathison, C., Nobrega, R. L. B., Gedney, N., Vidale, P. L., Otu-Larbi, F., Pandey, D., Garrigues, S., Wright, A., Slevin, D., De Kauwe, M. G., Blyth, E., Ardö, J., Black, A., Bonal, D., Buchmann, N., Burban, B., Fuchs, K., de Grandcourt, A., Mammarella, I., Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Nouvellon, Y., Restrepo-Coupe, N., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021. a
Harris, B. L.: cmip6-gpp-isv: v2.0 (v2.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11263264, 2024. a
Harris, B. L., Taylor, C. M., Weedon, G. P., Talib, J., Dorigo, W., and van der Schalie, R.: Satellite-Observed Vegetation Responses to Intraseasonal Precipitation Variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL099635, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL099635, 2022. a, b, c, d
Harris, I.: A forcings dataset of gridded land surface blend of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Japanese reanalysis (JRA) data; Jan. 1901–Dec. 2017, https://doi.org/10.5285/13f3635174794bb98cf8ac4b0ee8f4ed, 2019. a
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J., and Lister, D. H.: Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10 Dataset, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 623–642, https://doi.org/10.1002/JOC.3711, 2014. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J. N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.3803, 2020. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J-N.: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47, 2023. a
Hu, Q., Li, T., Deng, X., Wu, T., Zhai, P., Huang, D., Fan, X., Zhu, Y., Lin, Y., Xiao, X., Chen, X., Zhao, X., Wang, L., and Qin, Z.: Intercomparison of global terrestrial carbon fluxes estimated by MODIS and Earth system models, Sci. Total Environ., 810, 152231, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.152231, 2022. a, b
Huffman, G., Stocker, E., Bolvin, D., Nelkin, E., and Tan, J.: GPM IMERG final precipitation L3 1 d 0.1 degree × 0.1 degree v06, Greenbelt, MD, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/GPM/IMERGDF/DAY/06, 2019. a, b
Humphrey, V., Zscheischler, J., Ciais, P., Gudmundsson, L., Sitch, S., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage, Nature, 560, 628–631, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0424-4, 2018. a
Iturbide, M., Gutiérrez, J. M., Alves, L. M., Bedia, J., Cerezo-Mota, R., Cimadevilla, E., Cofiño, A. S., Di Luca, A., Faria, S. H., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Hauser, M., Herrera, S., Hennessy, K., Hewitt, H. T., Jones, R. G., Krakovska, S., Manzanas, R., Martínez-Castro, D., Narisma, G. T., Nurhati, I. S., Pinto, I., Seneviratne, S. I., van den Hurk, B., and Vera, C. S.: An update of IPCC climate reference regions for subcontinental analysis of climate model data: definition and aggregated datasets, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2959–2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2959-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Joiner, J., Guanter, L., Lindstrot, R., Voigt, M., Vasilkov, A. P., Middleton, E. M., Huemmrich, K. F., Yoshida, Y., and Frankenberg, C.: Global monitoring of terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from moderate-spectral-resolution near-infrared satellite measurements: methodology, simulations, and application to GOME-2, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2803–2823, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2803-2013, 2013. a
Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U., Ichii, K., Gans, F., Camps-Valls, G., Papale, D., Schwalm, C., Tramontana, G., and Reichstein, M.: The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes, Scientific Data, 6, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8, 2019. a
Jung, M., Schwalm, C., Migliavacca, M., Walther, S., Camps-Valls, G., Koirala, S., Anthoni, P., Besnard, S., Bodesheim, P., Carvalhais, N., Chevallier, F., Gans, F., Goll, D. S., Haverd, V., Köhler, P., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Liu, J., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nelson, J. A., O'Sullivan, M., Pallandt, M., Papale, D., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Rödenbeck, C., Sitch, S., Tramontana, G., Walker, A., Weber, U., and Reichstein, M.: Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 1343–1365, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Kern, S.: MODIS Collection 6 global 8-daily Gross Primary Production (Version 2019_fv0.01), Uni Hamburg [data set], https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.8556, 2021. a, b
Kim, D., Lee, M. I., Jeong, S. J., Im, J., Cha, D. H., and Lee, S.: Intercomparison of Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes and Carbon Use Efficiency Simulated by CMIP5 Earth System Models, Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 145–163, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-017-0066-8, 2018. a, b
Knauer, J., Werner, C., and Zaehle, S.: Evaluating stomatal models and their atmospheric drought response in a land surface scheme: A multibiome analysis, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 120, 1894–1911, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003114, 2015. a, b
Kobayashi, S., Ota, Y., Harada, Y., Ebita, A., Moriya, M., Onoda, H., Onogi, K., Kamahori, H., Kobayashi, C., Endo, H., Miyaoka, K., and Kiyotoshi, T.: The JRA-55 Reanalysis: General Specifications and Basic Characteristics, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 93, 5–48, https://doi.org/10.2151/JMSJ.2015-001, 2015. a
Köhler, P., Guanter, L., and Joiner, J.: A linear method for the retrieval of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from GOME-2 and SCIAMACHY data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 2589–2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2589-2015, 2015. a
Leuning, R.: A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C3 plants, Plant Cell Environ., 18, 339–355, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00370.x, 1995. a
Liu, L., Ciais, P., Wu, M., Padrón, R. S., Friedlingstein, P., Schwaab, J., Gudmundsson, L., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Increasingly negative tropical water–interannual CO2 growth rate coupling, Nature, 618, 755–760, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06056-x, 2023. a
Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, R. A. M., Fernández-Prieto, D., Beck, H. E., Dorigo, W. A., and Verhoest, N. E. C.: GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1903–1925, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017, 2017. a
Miralles, D. G., Holmes, T. R. H., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Meesters, A. G. C. A., and Dolman, A. J.: Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011, 2011. a
Piao, S., Sitch, S., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Peylin, P., Wang, X., Ahlström, A., Anav, A., Canadell, J. G., Cong, N., Huntingford, C., Jung, M., Levis, S., Levy, P. E., Li, J., Lin, X., Lomas, M. R., Lu, M., Luo, Y., Ma, Y., Myneni, R. B., Poulter, B., Sun, Z., Wang, T., Viovy, N., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, N.: Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO2 trends, Global Change Biol., 19, 2117–2132, https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.12187, 2013. a, b, c
Pickering, M., Cescatti, A., and Duveiller, G.: Sun-induced fluorescence as a proxy for primary productivity across vegetation types and climates, Biogeosciences, 19, 4833–4864, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4833-2022, 2022. a
Running, S., Mu, Q., and Zhao, M.: MOD17A2H MODIS/Terra Gross Primary Productivity 8-Day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006 [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD17A2H.006, 2015. a
Running, S. W., Nemani, R. R., Heinsch, F. A., Zhao, M., Reeves, M., and Hashimoto, H.: A Continuous Satellite-Derived Measure of Global Terrestrial Primary Production, BioScience, 54, 547–560, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0547:ACSMOG]2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Schimel, D., Pavlick, R., Fisher, J. B., Asner, G. P., Saatchi, S., Townsend, P., Miller, C., Frankenberg, C., Hibbard, K., and Cox, P.: Observing terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle from space, Global Change Biol., 21, 1762–1776, https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.12822, 2015. a
Seferian, R.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist, Version 20200715, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4003, 2019. a
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O, Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-LM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist, Version 20200218, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7924, 2019. a
Slevin, D., Tett, S. F. B., Exbrayat, J.-F., Bloom, A. A., and Williams, M.: Global evaluation of gross primary productivity in the JULES land surface model v3.4.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2651–2670, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2651-2017, 2017. a
Tang, Y., Rumbold, S., Ellis, R., Kelley, D., Mulcahy, J., Sellar, A., Walton, J., and Jones, C.: MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist, Version 20210122, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5929, 2019. a
Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G., Ráduly, B., Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G., Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert, S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.: Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016, 2016. a, b
Ulaby, F., Moore, M., and Fung, A.: Microwave Remote Sensing, Active and Passive: Radar Remote Sensing and Surface Scattering and Emission Theory, vol. 2, Artech House, Norwood, MA, ISBN: 0890061939, 1982. a
Wild, B., Teubner, I., Moesinger, L., Zotta, R.-M., Forkel, M., van der Schalie, R., Sitch, S., and Dorigo, W. A.: VODCA2GPP (Version 1.0.0), TU Wien [data set], https://doi.org/10.48436/1k7aj-bdz35, 2021. a
Wild, B., Teubner, I., Moesinger, L., Zotta, R.-M., Forkel, M., van der Schalie, R., Sitch, S., and Dorigo, W.: VODCA2GPP – a new, global, long-term (1988–2020) gross primary production dataset from microwave remote sensing, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1063–1085, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1063-2022, 2022. a
Wong, B.: Color blindness, Nat. Methods, 8, 441, https://doi.org/10.1038/NMETH.1618, 2011. a
Worden, J., Saatchi, S., Keller, M., Bloom, A. A., Liu, J., Parazoo, N., Fisher, J. B., Bowman, K., Reager, J. T., Fahy, K., Schimel, D., Fu, R., Worden, S., Yin, Y., Gentine, P., Konings, A. G., Quetin, G. R., Williams, M., Worden, H., Shi, M., and Barkhordarian, A.: Satellite Observations of the Tropical Terrestrial Carbon Balance and Interactions With the Water Cycle During the 21st Century, Rev. Geophys., 59, e2020RG000711, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000711, 2021. a
Wu, M., Vico, G., Manzoni, S., Cai, Z., Bassiouni, M., Tian, F., Zhang, J., Ye, K., and Messori, G.: Early Growing Season Anomalies in Vegetation Activity Determine the Large-Scale Climate-Vegetation Coupling in Europe, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 126, e2020JG006167, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JG006167, 2021. a, b
Wu, M., Manzoni, S., Vico, G., Bastos, A., de Vries, F. T., and Messori, G.: Drought Legacy in Sub-Seasonal Vegetation State and Sensitivity to Climate Over the Northern Hemisphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098700, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098700, 2022. a
Wu, T., Chu, M., Dong, M., Fang, Y., Jie, W., Li, J., Li, W., Liu, Q., Shi, X., Xin, X., Yan, J., Zhang, F., Zhang, J., Zhang, L., and Zhang, Y.: BCC BCC-CSM2MR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist, Version 20181220, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2901, 2018. a
Zhang, Y., Xiao, X., Wu, X., Zhou, S., Zhang, G., Qin, Y., and Dong, J.: A global moderate resolution dataset of gross primary production of vegetation for 2000–2016, Scientific Data, 4, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.165, 2017a. a
Zhang, Y., Xiao, X., Wu, X., Zhou, S., Zhang, G., Qin, Y., and Dong, J.: A global moderate resolution dataset of gross primary production of vegetation for 2000–2016, figshare [data set], https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3789814.v1, 2017b. a
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M., Lenton, A., Law, R., Bodman, R., Dix, M., Wang, Y., Dobrohotoff, P., Srbinovsky, J., Stevens, L., Vohralik, P., Mackallah, C., Sullivan, A., O'Farrell, S., and Druken, K.: CSIRO ACCESS-ESM1.5 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist, Version 20191128, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4242, 2019. a
Zobitz, J., Moore, D. J., Quaife, T., Braswell, B. H., Bergeson, A., Anthony, J. A., and Monson, R. K.: Joint data assimilation of satellite reflectance and net ecosystem exchange data constrains ecosystem carbon fluxes at a high-elevation subalpine forest, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 195, 73–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.011, 2014. a
Short summary
The response of vegetation productivity to rainfall is a crucial process linking the water and carbon cycles and influencing the evolution of the climate system. However, there are many uncertainties in its representation in Earth system models. We show that the vegetation productivity responses to short-term rainfall events are very different between models due to their differing sensitivities to water availability. We also evaluate the models against a range of observational products.
The response of vegetation productivity to rainfall is a crucial process linking the water and...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint