Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAnav, A
dc.contributor.authorFriedlingstein, P
dc.contributor.authorBeer, C
dc.contributor.authorCiais, P
dc.contributor.authorHarper, A
dc.contributor.authorJones, C
dc.contributor.authorMurray-Tortarolo, G
dc.contributor.authorPapale, D
dc.contributor.authorParazoo, NC
dc.contributor.authorPeylin, P
dc.contributor.authorPiao, S
dc.contributor.authorSitch, S
dc.contributor.authorViovy, N
dc.contributor.authorWiltshire, A
dc.contributor.authorZhao, M
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-07T14:28:15Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-12T14:09:13Z
dc.date.issued2015-08-18
dc.description.abstractGreat advances have been made in the last decade in quantifying and understanding the spatiotemporal patterns of terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) with ground, atmospheric, and space observations. However, although global GPP estimates exist, each data set relies upon assumptions and none of the available data are based only on measurements. Consequently, there is no consensus on the global total GPP and large uncertainties exist in its benchmarking. The objective of this review is to assess how the different available data sets predict the spatiotemporal patterns of GPP, identify the differences among data sets, and highlight the main advantages/disadvantages of each data set. We compare GPP estimates for the historical period (1990-2009) from two observation-based data sets (Model Tree Ensemble and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) to coupled carbon-climate models and terrestrial carbon cycle models from the Fifth Climate Model Intercomparison Project and TRENDY projects and to a new hybrid data set (CARBONES). Results show a large range in the mean global GPP estimates. The different data sets broadly agree on GPP seasonal cycle in terms of phasing, while there is still discrepancy on the amplitude. For interannual variability (IAV) and trends, there is a clear separation between the observation-based data that show little IAV and trend, while the process-based models have large GPP variability and significant trends. These results suggest that there is an urgent need to improve observation-based data sets and develop carbon cycle modeling with processes that are currently treated either very simplistically to correctly estimate present GPP and better quantify the future uptake of carbon dioxide by the world's vegetation.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission's Seventh Framework Programme. Grant Numbers: 238366, 282672en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 53, Iss. 3, pp. 785–818en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/2015RG000483
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/30934
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU)en_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/21007en_GB
dc.rights©2015. The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.en_GB
dc.subjectDGVMsen_GB
dc.subjectESMsen_GB
dc.subjectGPPen_GB
dc.subjectMTEen_GB
dc.subjectSatelliteen_GB
dc.titleSpatiotemporal patterns of terrestrial gross primary production: A reviewen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2016-04-07T14:28:15Z
dc.date.available2018-01-12T14:09:13Z
dc.identifier.issn8755-1209
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from American Geophysical Union via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.descriptionThere is another record for this publication in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/21007en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1944-9208
dc.identifier.journalReviews of Geophysicsen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record