Accurate Simulation of Both Sensitivity and Variability for Amazonian Photosynthesis: Is It Too Much to Ask?

Estimates of Amazon rainforest gross primary productivity (GPP) differ by a factor of 2 across a suite of three statistical and 18 process models. This wide spread contributes uncertainty to predictions of future climate. We compare the mean and variance of GPP from these models to that of GPP at six eddy covariance (EC) towers. Only one model's mean GPP across all sites falls within a 99% confidence interval for EC GPP, and only one model matches EC variance. The strength of model response to climate drivers is related to model ability to match the seasonal pattern of the EC GPP. Models with stronger seasonal swings in GPP have stronger responses to rain, light, and temperature than does EC GPP. The model to data comparison illustrates a trade-off inherent to deterministic models between accurate simulation of a mean (average) and accurate responsiveness to drivers. The trade-off exists because all deterministic models simplify processes and lack at least some consequential driver or interaction. If a model's sensitivities to included drivers and their interactions are accurate, then deterministically predicted outcomes have less variability than is realistic. If a GPP model has stronger responses to climate drivers than found in data, model predictions may match the observed variance and seasonal pattern but are likely to overpredict GPP response to climate change. High or realistic variability of model estimates relative to reference data indicate that the model is hypersensitive to one or more drivers.

Surface-Atmosphere Coupling Scale, the Fate of Water, and Ecophysiological Function in a Brazilian Forest.

Tropical South America plays a central role in global climate. Bowen ratio teleconnects to circulation and precipitation processes far afield, and the global CO2 growth rate is strongly influenced by carbon cycle processes in South America. However, quantification of basin-wide seasonality of flux partitioning between latent and sensible heat, the response to anomalies around climatic norms, and understanding of the processes and mechanisms that control the carbon cycle remains elusive. Here, we investigate simulated surface-atmosphere interaction at a single site in Brazil, using models with different representations of precipitation and cloud processes, as well as differences in scale of coupling between the surface and atmosphere. We find that the model with parameterized clouds/precipitation has a tendency toward unrealistic perpetual light precipitation, while models with explicit treatment of clouds produce more intense and less frequent rain. Models that couple the surface to the atmosphere on the scale of kilometers, as opposed to tens or hundreds of kilometers, produce even more realistic distributions of rainfall. Rainfall intensity has direct consequences for the "fate of water," or the pathway that a hydrometeor follows once it interacts with the surface. We find that the model with explicit treatment of cloud processes, coupled to the surface at small scales, is the most realistic when compared to observations. These results have implications for simulations of global climate, as the use of models with explicit (as opposed to parameterized) cloud representations becomes more widespread.