Global ecosystems and fire: Multi-model assessment of fire-induced tree-cover and carbon storage reduction.

In this study, we use simulations from seven global vegetation models to provide the first multi-model estimate of fire impacts on global tree cover and the carbon cycle under current climate and anthropogenic land use conditions, averaged for the years 2001-2012. Fire globally reduces the tree covered area and vegetation carbon storage by 10%. Regionally, the effects are much stronger, up to 20% for certain latitudinal bands, and 17% in savanna regions. Global fire effects on total carbon storage and carbon turnover times are lower with the effect on gross primary productivity (GPP) close to 0. We find the strongest impacts of fire in savanna regions. Climatic conditions in regions with the highest burned area differ from regions with highest absolute fire impact, which are characterized by higher precipitation. Our estimates of fire-induced vegetation change are lower than previous studies. We attribute these differences to different definitions of vegetation change and effects of anthropogenic land use, which were not considered in previous studies and decreases the impact of fire on tree cover. Accounting for fires significantly improves the spatial patterns of simulated tree cover, which demonstrates the need to represent fire in dynamic vegetation models. Based upon comparisons between models and observations, process understanding and representation in models, we assess a higher confidence in the fire impact on tree cover and vegetation carbon compared to GPP, total carbon storage and turnover times. We have higher confidence in the spatial patterns compared to the global totals of the simulated fire impact. As we used an ensemble of state-of-the-art fire models, including effects of land use and the ensemble median or mean compares better to observational datasets than any individual model, we consider the here presented results to be the current best estimate of global fire effects on ecosystems.

State of the science in reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches for terrestrial CO2 budget.

Robust estimates of CO2 budget, CO2 exchanged between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, are necessary to better understand the role of the terrestrial biosphere in mitigating anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Over the past decade, this field of research has advanced through understanding of the differences and similarities of two fundamentally different approaches: "top-down" atmospheric inversions and "bottom-up" biosphere models. Since the first studies were undertaken, these approaches have shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part because they do not estimate the same quantity of atmosphere-biosphere CO2 exchange. Here, we conducted a thorough comparison of CO2 budgets at multiple scales and from multiple methods to assess the current state of the science in estimating CO2 budgets. Our set of atmospheric inversions and biosphere models, which were adjusted for a consistent flux definition, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO2 budgets in the 2000s. Regionally, improved agreement in CO2 budgets was notable for North America and Southeast Asia. However, large gaps between the two methods remained in East Asia and South America. In other regions, Europe, boreal Asia, Africa, South Asia, and Oceania, it was difficult to determine whether those regions act as a net sink or source because of the large spread in estimates from atmospheric inversions. These results highlight two research directions to improve the robustness of CO2 budgets: (a) to increase representation of processes in biosphere models that could contribute to fill the budget gaps, such as forest regrowth and forest degradation; and (b) to reduce sink-source compensation between regions (dipoles) in atmospheric inversion so that their estimates become more comparable. Advancements on both research areas will increase the level of agreement between the top-down and bottom-up approaches and yield more robust knowledge of regional CO2 budgets.

Comparing concentration-based (AOT40) and stomatal uptake (PODY) metrics for ozone risk assessment to European forests.

Tropospheric ozone (O3) produces harmful effects to forests and crops, leading to a reduction of land carbon assimilation that, consequently, influences the land sink and the crop yield production. To assess the potential negative O3 impacts to vegetation, the European Union uses the Accumulated Ozone over Threshold of 40 ppb (AOT40). This index has been chosen for its simplicity and flexibility in handling different ecosystems as well as for its linear relationships with yield or biomass loss. However, AOT40 does not give any information on the physiological O3 uptake into the leaves since it does not include any environmental constraints to O3 uptake through stomata. Therefore, an index based on stomatal O3 uptake (i.e. PODY), which describes the amount of O3 entering into the leaves, would be more appropriate. Specifically, the PODY metric considers the effects of multiple climatic factors, vegetation characteristics and local and phenological inputs rather than the only atmospheric O3 concentration. For this reason, the use of PODY in the O3 risk assessment for vegetation is becoming recommended. We compare different potential O3 risk assessments based on two methodologies (i.e. AOT40 and stomatal O3 uptake) using a framework of mesoscale models that produces hourly meteorological and O3 data at high spatial resolution (12 km) over Europe for the time period 2000-2005. Results indicate a remarkable spatial and temporal inconsistency between the two indices, suggesting that a new definition of European legislative standard is needed in the near future. Besides, our risk assessment based on AOT40 shows a good consistency compared to both in-situ data and other model-based datasets. Conversely, risk assessment based on stomatal O3 uptake shows different spatial patterns compared to other model-based datasets. This strong inconsistency can be likely related to a different vegetation cover and its associated parameterizations.

Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe.

Global change will alter the supply of ecosystem services that are vital for human well-being. To investigate ecosystem service supply during the 21st century, we used a range of ecosystem models and scenarios of climate and land-use change to conduct a Europe-wide assessment. Large changes in climate and land use typically resulted in large changes in ecosystem service supply. Some of these trends may be positive (for example, increases in forest area and productivity) or offer opportunities (for example, "surplus land" for agricultural extensification and bioenergy production). However, many changes increase vulnerability as a result of a decreasing supply of ecosystem services (for example, declining soil fertility, declining water availability, increasing risk of forest fires), especially in the Mediterranean and mountain regions.