Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Professor Iain Colin Prentice

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Life Sciences (Silwood Park)

Chair in Biosphere and Climate Impacts
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 2482c.prentice

 
 
//

Location

 

2.3Centre for Population BiologySilwood Park

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{De:2014:10.1111/nph.12847,
author = {De, Kauwe MG and Medlyn, BE and Zaehle, S and Walker, AP and Dietze, MC and Wang, Y-P and Luo, Y and Jain, AK and El-Masri, B and Hickler, T and Warlind, D and Weng, E and Parton, WJ and Thornton, PE and Wang, S and Prentice, IC and Asao, S and Smith, B and McCarthy, HR and Iversen, CM and Hanson, PJ and Warren, JM and Oren, R and Norby, RJ},
doi = {10.1111/nph.12847},
journal = {NEW PHYTOLOGIST},
pages = {883--899},
title = {Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.12847},
volume = {203},
year = {2014}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Elevated atmospheric CO2concentration (eCO2) has the potential to increase vegetationcarbon storage if increased net primary production causes increased long-lived biomass.Model predictions of eCO2effects on vegetation carbon storage depend on how allocationand turnover processes are represented. We used data from two temperate forest free-air CO2enrichment (FACE) experiments toevaluate representations of allocation and turnover in 11 ecosystem models. Observed eCO2effects on allocation were dynamic. Allocation schemes based on func-tional relationships among biomass fractions that vary with resource availability were best ableto capture the general features of the observations. Allocation schemes based on constantfractions or resource limitations performed less well, with some models having unintendedoutcomes. Few models represent turnover processes mechanistically and there was wide vari-ation in predictions of tissue lifespan. Consequently, models did not perform well at predictingeCO2effects on vegetation carbon storage. Our recommendations to reduce uncertainty include: use of allocation schemes constrainedby biomass fractions; careful testing of allocation schemes; and synthesis of allocation andturnover data in terms of model parameters. Data from intensively studied ecosystem manip-ulation experiments are invaluable for constraining models and we recommend that suchexperiments should attempt to fully quantify carbon, water and nutrient budgets.
AU  - De,Kauwe MG
AU  - Medlyn,BE
AU  - Zaehle,S
AU  - Walker,AP
AU  - Dietze,MC
AU  - Wang,Y-P
AU  - Luo,Y
AU  - Jain,AK
AU  - El-Masri,B
AU  - Hickler,T
AU  - Warlind,D
AU  - Weng,E
AU  - Parton,WJ
AU  - Thornton,PE
AU  - Wang,S
AU  - Prentice,IC
AU  - Asao,S
AU  - Smith,B
AU  - McCarthy,HR
AU  - Iversen,CM
AU  - Hanson,PJ
AU  - Warren,JM
AU  - Oren,R
AU  - Norby,RJ
DO  - 10.1111/nph.12847
EP  - 899
PY  - 2014///
SN  - 0028-646X
SP  - 883
TI  - Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites
T2  - NEW PHYTOLOGIST
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.12847
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000339556300018&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/56727
VL  - 203
ER  -
Download