Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Mar 3;112(9):2788-93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1413090112. Epub 2015 Feb 17.

Joint control of terrestrial gross primary productivity by plant phenology and physiology.

Author information

1
Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019; jxia@ou.edu sniu@igsnrr.ac.cn yluo@ou.edu.
2
Synthesis Research Center of Chinese Ecosystem Research Network, Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Beijing 100101, China; jxia@ou.edu sniu@igsnrr.ac.cn yluo@ou.edu.
3
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France;
4
Department of Biology, University of Antwerpen, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium;
5
Center for Global Change and Earth Observations and Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;
6
Climate and Air Pollution Group, Federal Research Station Agroscope, CH-8046 Zurich, Switzerland;
7
School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1;
8
Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80302;
9
European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 21027 Ispra, Italy;
10
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR 1137 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-Université de Lorraine, 54280 Champenoux, France;
11
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Eidgenössiche Technische Hochschule Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland;
12
Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210;
13
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China;
14
Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019;
15
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada TIK 3M4;
16
Tropospheric sounding, assimilation, and modeling group, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109;
17
Institute of Biometeorology, 40129 Bologna, Italy;
18
Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2012;
19
Department of Biological Sciences, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209;
20
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland;
21
Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019; Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209;
22
Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark;
23
Institute for Mediterranean Agricultural and Forest Systems, National Research Council, 80040 Ercolano, Italy;
24
Sustainable Agro-Ecosystems and Bioresources Department, Fondazione Edmund Mach, 38010 S. Michele all'Adige, Italy;
25
Servizi Forestali, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, 39100 Bolzano, Italy; Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bolzano, 39100 Bolzano, Italy;
26
Earth System Science and Climate Change Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen UR, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;
27
Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark;
28
Department of Ecology, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China; Key Laboratory of Alpine Ecology and Biodiversity, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Center for Excellence in Tibetan Earth Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China;
29
Institute of Biometeorology, National Research Council, 50145 Florence, Italy;
30
Cirad-Persyst, UMR Ecologie Fonctionnelle and Biogéochimie des Sols et des Agro-Ecosystémes, 34060 Montpellier, France; Tropical Agricultural Centre for Research and High Education, 7170 Turrialba, Costa Rica;
31
School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0961;
32
Department of Meteorology, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60649 Poznan, Poland;
33
A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119071, Russia;
34
Departments of Physics and Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland;
35
Centre for Sustainable Forestry and Climate Change, Forest Research, Farnham GU10 4LH, United Kingdom;
36
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544;
37
Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; Institute for Applied Remote Sensing and Institute for Alpine Environment, European Academy of Bolzano, 39100 Bolzano, Italy;
38
School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China; and.
39
Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019; Center for Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China jxia@ou.edu sniu@igsnrr.ac.cn yluo@ou.edu.

Abstract

Terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) varies greatly over time and space. A better understanding of this variability is necessary for more accurate predictions of the future climate-carbon cycle feedback. Recent studies have suggested that variability in GPP is driven by a broad range of biotic and abiotic factors operating mainly through changes in vegetation phenology and physiological processes. However, it is still unclear how plant phenology and physiology can be integrated to explain the spatiotemporal variability of terrestrial GPP. Based on analyses of eddy-covariance and satellite-derived data, we decomposed annual terrestrial GPP into the length of the CO2 uptake period (CUP) and the seasonal maximal capacity of CO2 uptake (GPPmax). The product of CUP and GPPmax explained >90% of the temporal GPP variability in most areas of North America during 2000-2010 and the spatial GPP variation among globally distributed eddy flux tower sites. It also explained GPP response to the European heatwave in 2003 (r(2) = 0.90) and GPP recovery after a fire disturbance in South Dakota (r(2) = 0.88). Additional analysis of the eddy-covariance flux data shows that the interbiome variation in annual GPP is better explained by that in GPPmax than CUP. These findings indicate that terrestrial GPP is jointly controlled by ecosystem-level plant phenology and photosynthetic capacity, and greater understanding of GPPmax and CUP responses to environmental and biological variations will, thus, improve predictions of GPP over time and space.

KEYWORDS:

climate extreme; ecosystem carbon uptake; growing season length; photosynthetic capacity; spatiotemporal variability

PMID:
25730847
PMCID:
PMC4352779
DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1413090112
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center