【24h】

Evaluations of CMIP5 simulations over cropland

机译:农田上CMIP5模拟的评估

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Cropland is one of major sources of carbon lost to the atmosphere and directly contributes to the emissions of greenhouse gases. There is, however, large potential for cropland to reduce its carbon flux to the atmosphere and sequester soil carbon through conservative agriculture management including no-tillage, perennial and/or deep root crops, irrigation, and organic fertilization etc. But these estimations on carbon emissions and sequestrations over cropland under future climate changes and variability remain largest uncertain among all other terrestrial biomes. Global climate and earth system models are an effective tool to study the cropland responses and feedbacks to present and future climate, yet most models in the latest couple model intercomparsion project phase 5 (CMIP5), generally treat cropland similarly as grassland with tuned parameters and do not account for realistic crop phenology, physiology, and management. In this study, we will evaluate the limitations and deficiencies of the CMIP5 models without process-based crop growth models over cropland by comparing their simulations against FLUXNET observations at eight cropland sites. The results show that: (1) the observed and simulated annual cycles generally are not consistent in either phase or amplitude; (2) the MPI and IPSL model families have better skills in the annual cycles of gross primary product (GPP), net ecosystem production (NEP), and terrestrial ecosystem respiration (TER) than other models at the corn/soybean and cereal sites respectively; (3) none of the CMIP5 models successfully simulate the observed two-peak pattern in the annual cycles of sensible heat fluxes at the corn/soybean sites; (4) the simulated GPPs and NEPs of the CESM1, BCC model families and NorESM1-M are much smaller than the observations for entire year; (5) model members from same model family normally simulate similar annual cycles both in phase and magnitude, but the model members from the CESM1 model family with different atmospheric models have different annual cycles; (6) the biases both in phases and magnitudes of annual cycles for the biogeochemical variables (GPP, NEP and TER) are generally larger than those biogeophysical variables (sensible and latent heat fluxes). Because of the above limitations and deficiencies of CMIP5 simulations over cropland, it is essential to incorporate process-based crop growth models into ESMs to improve the model physics and performance over cropland.
机译:农田是向大气中损失的碳的主要来源之一,直接导致了温室气体的排放。但是,通过保守的农业管理措施(包括免耕,多年生和/或深根作物,灌溉和有机肥等),农田有很大的潜力减少向大气的碳通量并隔离土壤碳。在所有其他陆地生物群落中,未来气候变化和变率下农田的碳排放和固存仍然是最大的不确定因素。全球气候和地球系统模型是研究耕地对当前和未来气候的响应和反馈的有效工具,但是最新的夫妇模型比较项目第5阶段(CMIP5)中的大多数模型通常将耕地与具有调整参数的草地相似地对待,并且不能说明现实的作物物候,生理和管理。在这项研究中,我们将通过比较其模拟结果与FLUXNET在八个农田点的观测结果,来评估CMIP5模型在农田上没有基于过程的作物生长模型的局限性和缺陷。结果表明:(1)观测和模拟的年周期一般在相位或振幅上都不一致; (2)MPI和IPSL模型系列分别在玉米/大豆和谷物生产基地的其他模型中在初级产品总产值(GPP),净生态系统产量(NEP)和陆地生态系统呼吸(TER)的年度周期中具有更好的技能; (3)没有一个CMIP5模型成功地模拟了玉米/大豆位点感热通量年周期中观测到的两个峰值模式; (4)CESM1,BCC模型族和NorESM1-M的模拟GPP和NEP远小于全年的观测值; (5)来自同一模型族的模型成员通常在相位和幅值上模拟相似的年周期,但是来自具有不同大气模型的CESM1模型族的模型成员具有不同的年周期; (6)生物地球化学变量(GPP,NEP和TER)在年周期的阶段和幅度上的偏差一般都大于那些生物地球物理变量(显热通量和潜热通量)。由于以上对农田的CMIP5模拟的局限性和不足,将基于过程的作物生长模型纳入ESM至关重要,以改善农田的模型物理和性能。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号