Accessibility navigation


Contrasting responses of vegetation productivity to intraseasonal rainfall in Earth system models

Harris, B. L., Quaife, T. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6896-4613, Taylor, C. M. and Harris, P. P. (2024) Contrasting responses of vegetation productivity to intraseasonal rainfall in Earth system models. Earth System Dynamics, 15 (4). pp. 1019-1035. ISSN 2190-4987

[img] Text - Published Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

4MB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.5194/esd-15-1019-2024

Abstract/Summary

Correctly representing the response of vegetation productivity to water availability in Earth system models (ESMs) is essential for accurately modelling the terrestrial carbon cycle and the evolution of the climate system. Previous studies evaluating gross primary productivity (GPP) in ESMs have focused on annual mean GPP and interannual variability, but physical processes at shorter timescales are important for determining vegetation–climate coupling. We evaluate GPP responses at the intraseasonal timescale in five CMIP6 ESMs by analysing changes in GPP after intraseasonal rainfall events with a timescale of approximately 25 d. We compare these responses to those found in a range of observation-based products. When composited around all intraseasonal rainfall events globally, both the amplitude and the timing of the GPP response show large inter-model differences, demonstrating discrepancies between models in their representation of water–carbon coupling processes. However, the responses calculated from the observational datasets also vary considerably, making it challenging to assess the realism of the modelled GPP responses. The models correctly capture the fact that larger increases in GPP at the regional scale are associated with larger increases in surface soil moisture and larger decreases in atmospheric vapour pressure deficit. However, the sensitivity of the GPP response to these drivers varies between models. The GPP in NorESM is insufficiently sensitive to vapour pressure deficit perturbations when compared all to other models and six out of seven observational GPP products tested. Most models produce a faster GPP response where the surface soil moisture perturbation is larger, but the observational evidence for this relationship is weak. This work demonstrates the need for a better understanding of the uncertainties in the representation of water–vegetation relationships in ESMs and highlights a requirement for future daily-resolution observations of GPP to provide a tighter constraint on global water–carbon coupling processes.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO)
Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > Department of Meteorology
ID Code:117597
Publisher:European Geosciences Union

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation