Premium
Rainfall manipulation experiments as simulated by terrestrial biosphere models: Where do we stand?
Author(s) -
Paschalis Athanasios,
Fatichi Simone,
Zscheischler Jakob,
Ciais Philippe,
Bahn Michael,
Boysen Lena,
Chang Jinfeng,
De Kauwe Martin,
Estiarte Marc,
Goll Daniel,
Hanson Paul J.,
Harper Anna B.,
Hou Enqing,
Kigel Jaime,
Knapp Alan K.,
Larsen Klaus S.,
Li Wei,
Lienert Sebastian,
Luo Yiqi,
Meir Patrick,
Nabel Julia E. M. S.,
Ogaya Romà,
Parolari Anthony J.,
Peng Changhui,
Peñuelas Josep,
Pongratz Julia,
Rambal Serge,
Schmidt Inger K.,
Shi Hao,
Sternberg Marcelo,
Tian Hanqin,
Tschumi Elisabeth,
Ukkola Anna,
Vicca Sara,
Viovy Nicolas,
Wang YingPing,
Wang Zhuonan,
Williams Karina,
Wu Donghai,
Zhu Qiuan
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
global change biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.146
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1365-2486
pISSN - 1354-1013
DOI - 10.1111/gcb.15024
Subject(s) - environmental science , biosphere , evapotranspiration , productivity , ecosystem , vegetation (pathology) , atmospheric sciences , biosphere model , climatology , primary production , carbon cycle , terrestrial ecosystem , hydrology (agriculture) , ecology , geology , medicine , pathology , biology , economics , macroeconomics , geotechnical engineering
Changes in rainfall amounts and patterns have been observed and are expected to continue in the near future with potentially significant ecological and societal consequences. Modelling vegetation responses to changes in rainfall is thus crucial to project water and carbon cycles in the future. In this study, we present the results of a new model‐data intercomparison project, where we tested the ability of 10 terrestrial biosphere models to reproduce the observed sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to rainfall changes at 10 sites across the globe, in nine of which, rainfall exclusion and/or irrigation experiments had been performed. The key results are as follows: (a) Inter‐model variation is generally large and model agreement varies with timescales. In severely water‐limited sites, models only agree on the interannual variability of evapotranspiration and to a smaller extent on gross primary productivity. In more mesic sites, model agreement for both water and carbon fluxes is typically higher on fine (daily–monthly) timescales and reduces on longer (seasonal–annual) scales. (b) Models on average overestimate the relationship between ecosystem productivity and mean rainfall amounts across sites (in space) and have a low capacity in reproducing the temporal (interannual) sensitivity of vegetation productivity to annual rainfall at a given site, even though observation uncertainty is comparable to inter‐model variability. (c) Most models reproduced the sign of the observed patterns in productivity changes in rainfall manipulation experiments but had a low capacity in reproducing the observed magnitude of productivity changes. Models better reproduced the observed productivity responses due to rainfall exclusion than addition. (d) All models attribute ecosystem productivity changes to the intensity of vegetation stress and peak leaf area, whereas the impact of the change in growing season length is negligible. The relative contribution of the peak leaf area and vegetation stress intensity was highly variable among models.