Premium
Simple carbon assimilation response functions from atmospheric CO 2 , and daily temperature and shortwave radiation
Author(s) -
WILKS D.S.,
WOLFE D.W.,
RIHA S.J.
Publication year - 1995
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/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00032.x
Subject(s) - environmental science , shortwave radiation , atmospheric sciences , canopy , leaf area index , ecosystem , latitude , global change , data assimilation , shortwave , climatology , climate change , primary production , photosynthetically active radiation , photosynthesis , radiation , meteorology , ecology , radiative transfer , geography , chemistry , biology , biochemistry , physics , geodesy , quantum mechanics , geology
A global ‘CO 2 fertilizer effect’ multiplier is often used in crop or ecosystem models because of its simplicity. However, this approach does not take into account the interaction between CO 2 , temperature and light on assimilation. This omission can lead to significant under‐ or overestimation of the magnitude of beneficial effects from elevated CO 2 , depending on environmental conditions. We use a mechanistic model of the biochemistry of photosynthesis to represent the response of net assimilation to different levels of CO 2 , temperature and radiation, on the daily time scale. Instantaneous assimilation rates for an idealized canopy model are integrated through diurnal cycles of environmental variables derived from historical climate data at three locations in North America. The calculated CO 2 fertilizer effect is greatest at high light and warm temperatures. The results are summarized by assimilation response surfaces specified by the CO 2 concentration, the canopy leaf area index, and by daily values of temperature and radiation available from climatic records. These summary functions are suitable for incorporation into crop or ecosystem models for predicting carbon assimilation or biomass production on a daily time step. An example application of the function reveals that for a relatively cool, high latitude location, the beneficial effects from a CO 2 doubling would be negligible during the early spring, even assuming a + 4°C global warming scenario. In contrast, the beneficial effects from increasing CO 2 at a relatively warm, lower latitude location are greatest in the spring, but decline in late summer because of excessively warm temperatures with a + 4°C global warming.