2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemRegional contribution to variability and trends of global gross primary productivity(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Chen, Min; Rafique, Rashid; Asrar, Ghassem R.; Bond-Lamberty, Ben; Ciais, Philippe; Zhao, Fang; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Ostberg, Sebastian; Chang, Jinfeng; Ito, Akihiko; Yang, Jia; Zeng, Ning; Kalnay, Eugenia; West, Tristram; Leng, Guoyong; Francois, Louis; Munhoven, Guy; Henrot, Alexandra; Tian, Hanqin; Pan, Shufen; Nishina, Kazuya; Viovy, Nicolas; Morfopoulos, Catherine; Betts, Richard; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Steinkamp, JörgTerrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) is the largest component of the global carbon cycle and a key process for understanding land ecosystems dynamics. In this study, we used GPP estimates from a combination of eight global biome models participating in the Inter-Sectoral Impact-Model Intercomparison Project phase 2a (ISIMIP2a), the Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS) GPP product, and a data-driven product (Model Tree Ensemble, MTE) to study the spatiotemporal variability of GPP at the regional and global levels. We found the 2000–2010 total global GPP estimated from the model ensemble to be 117 ± 13 Pg C yr−1 (mean ± 1 standard deviation), which was higher than MODIS (112 Pg C yr−1), and close to the MTE (120 Pg C yr−1). The spatial patterns of MODIS, MTE and ISIMIP2a GPP generally agree well, but their temporal trends are different, and the seasonality and inter-annual variability of GPP at the regional and global levels are not completely consistent. For the model ensemble, Tropical Latin America contributes the most to global GPP, Asian regions contribute the most to the global GPP trend, the Northern Hemisphere regions dominate the global GPP seasonal variations, and Oceania is likely the largest contributor to inter-annual variability of global GPP. However, we observed large uncertainties across the eight ISIMIP2a models, which are probably due to the differences in the formulation of underlying photosynthetic processes. The results of this study are useful in understanding the contributions of different regions to global GPP and its spatiotemporal variability, how the model- and observational-based GPP estimates differ from each other in time and space, and the relative strength of the eight models. Our results also highlight the models' ability to capture the seasonality of GPP that are essential for understanding the inter-annual and seasonal variability of GPP as a major component of the carbon cycle.
- ItemThe critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Zhao, Fang; Veldkamp, Ted I.E.; Frieler, Katja; Schewe, Jacob; Ostberg, Sebastian; Willner, Sven; Schauberger, Bernhard; Gosling, Simon N.; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Portmann, Felix T.; Leng, Guoyong; Huang, Maoyi; Liu, Xingcai; Tang, Qiuhong; Hanasaki, Naota; Biemans, Hester; Gerten, Dieter; Satoh, Yusuke; Pokhrel, Yadu; Stacke, Tobias; Ciais, Philippe; Chang, Jinfeng; Ducharne, Agnes; Guimberteau, Matthieu; Wada, Yoshihide; Kim, Hyungjun; Yamazaki, DaiGlobal hydrological models (GHMs) have been applied to assess global flood hazards, but their capacity to capture the timing and amplitude of peak river discharge—which is crucial in flood simulations—has traditionally not been the focus of examination. Here we evaluate to what degree the choice of river routing scheme affects simulations of peak discharge and may help to provide better agreement with observations. To this end we use runoff and discharge simulations of nine GHMs forced by observational climate data (1971–2010) within the ISIMIP2a project. The runoff simulations were used as input for the global river routing model CaMa-Flood. The simulated daily discharge was compared to the discharge generated by each GHM using its native river routing scheme. For each GHM both versions of simulated discharge were compared to monthly and daily discharge observations from 1701 GRDC stations as a benchmark. CaMa-Flood routing shows a general reduction of peak river discharge and a delay of about two to three weeks in its occurrence, likely induced by the buffering capacity of floodplain reservoirs. For a majority of river basins, discharge produced by CaMa-Flood resulted in a better agreement with observations. In particular, maximum daily discharge was adjusted, with a multi-model averaged reduction in bias over about 2/3 of the analysed basin area. The increase in agreement was obtained in both managed and near-natural basins. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of routing scheme choice in peak discharge simulation, where CaMa-Flood routing accounts for floodplain storage and backwater effects that are not represented in most GHMs. Our study provides important hints that an explicit parameterisation of these processes may be essential in future impact studies.