Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5

Earth system models (ESMs) have been rapidly developed in recent decades to advance our understanding of climate change‐carbon cycle feedback. However, those models are massive in coding, require expensive computational resources, and have difficulty in diagnosing their performance. It is highly desirable to develop ESMs with modularity and effective diagnostics. Toward these goals, we implemented a matrix approach to the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) to represent carbon and nitrogen cycles. Specifically, we reorganized 18 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 18 vegetation pools in the original CLM5 into two matrix equations. Similarly, 140 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 140 soil pools were reorganized into two additional matrix equations. The vegetation carbon and nitrogen matrix equations are connected to soil matrix equations via litterfall. The matrix equations fully reproduce simulations of carbon and nitrogen dynamics by the original model. The computational cost for forwarding simulation of the CLM5 matrix model was 26% more expensive than the original model, largely due to calculation of additional diagnostic variables, but the spin‐up computational cost was significantly saved. We showed a case study on modeled soil carbon storage under two forcing data sets to illustrate the diagnostic capability that the matrix approach uniquely offers to understand simulation results of global carbon and nitrogen dynamics. The successful implementation of the matrix approach to CLM5, one of the most complex land models, demonstrates that most, if not all, the biogeochemical models can be reorganized into the matrix form to gain high modularity, effective diagnostics, and accelerated spin‐up. Plain Language Summary Land models are widely used in climate change research. Due to the complex system, the model is not easily comprehended, nor the results are easily interpreted, even by a specialist. Enhancing the model tractability is imperative to make climate change prediction more effective, especially as models become more and more complex. In this study, we developed a matrix model by reorganizing six carbon and nitrogenmodules of Community LandModel version 5 (CLM5) into four matrix equations to represent vegetation carbon, vegetation nitrogen, soil carbon, and soil nitrogen balance equations, respectively. The CLM5 matrix model gains high modularity, effective diagnostics, and accelerated spin‐up. The success of applying the matrix approach to CLM5, one of the most complex land models, support the theoretical analysis that the matrix approach is applicable to almost all land biogeochemical models.

[1]  G. Bonan,et al.  Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: The challenge to predict life in Earth system models , 2018, Science.

[2]  L. White,et al.  Probabilistic inversion of a terrestrial ecosystem model: Analysis of uncertainty in parameter estimation and model prediction , 2006 .

[3]  W. J. Riley,et al.  Barriers to predicting changes in global terrestrial methane fluxes: analyses using CLM4Me, a methane biogeochemistry model integrated in CESM , 2011 .

[4]  Yiqi Luo,et al.  Improvement of global litter turnover rate predictions using a Bayesian MCMC approach , 2014 .

[5]  Xiaomeng Huang,et al.  Deep Learning Optimizes Data-Driven Representation of Soil Organic Carbon in Earth System Model Over the Conterminous United States , 2019, Frontiers in Big Data.

[6]  G. Asrar,et al.  Comparing the Performance of Three Land Models in Global C Cycle Simulations: A Detailed Structural Analysis , 2017 .

[7]  G. Asrar,et al.  Divergent predictions of carbon storage between two global land models: Attribution of the causes through traceability analysis , 2015 .

[8]  Stefan Reimann,et al.  Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6) , 2016 .

[9]  Yiqi Luo,et al.  Carbon – nitrogen coupling under three schemes of model representation : a traceability analysis , 2018 .

[10]  K.,et al.  Carbon–Concentration and Carbon–Climate Feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models , 2012 .

[11]  C. Sierra,et al.  A general mathematical framework for representing soil organic matter dynamics , 2015 .

[12]  P. Thornton,et al.  Ecosystem model spin-up: Estimating steady state conditions in a coupled terrestrial carbon and nitrogen cycle model , 2005 .

[13]  M. Torn,et al.  The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4 , 2013 .

[14]  S. Levis,et al.  A process-based fire parameterization of intermediate complexity in a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model , 2012 .

[15]  P. Ciais,et al.  Matrix‐Based Sensitivity Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon Storage: A Case Study from the ORCHIDEE‐MICT Model , 2018, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.

[16]  Jianyang Xia,et al.  Traceable components of terrestrial carbon storage capacity in biogeochemical models , 2013, Global change biology.

[17]  S. Running,et al.  8 – Generalization of a Forest Ecosystem Process Model for Other Biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an Application for Global-Scale Models , 1993 .

[18]  Y. Wang,et al.  Transient Traceability Analysis of Land Carbon Storage Dynamics: Procedures and Its Application to Two Forest Ecosystems , 2017 .

[19]  R. Dickinson,et al.  Biosphere-Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) version le as coupled to the NCAR community climate model. Technical note. [NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research)] , 1993 .

[20]  Yiqi Luo,et al.  A semi-analytical solution to accelerate spin-up of a coupled carbon and nitrogen land model to steady state , 2012 .

[21]  Yiqi Luo,et al.  Inverse analysis of coupled carbon–nitrogen cycles against multiple datasets at ambient and elevated CO2 , 2016 .

[22]  Nate G. McDowell,et al.  Toward a Mechanistic Modeling of Nitrogen Limitation on Vegetation Dynamics , 2012, PloS one.

[23]  F. Li,et al.  Quantifying the role of fire in the Earth system – Part 1 : Improved global fire modeling in the Community Earth System Model ( CESM 1 ) , 2012 .

[24]  Jianyang Xia,et al.  Matrix approach to land carbon cycle modeling: A case study with the Community Land Model , 2018, Global change biology.

[25]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Uncertainties in CMIP5 Climate Projections due to Carbon Cycle Feedbacks , 2014 .

[26]  W. Landman Climate change 2007: the physical science basis , 2010 .

[27]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests , 2002 .

[28]  Benjamin Smith,et al.  Importance of vegetation dynamics for future terrestrial carbon cycling , 2015 .

[29]  Model structures amplify uncertainty in predicted soil carbon responses to climate change , 2018, Nature Communications.

[30]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets , 2014 .

[31]  C. Woodcock,et al.  A regional forest ecosystem carbon budget model: impacts of forest age structure and landuse history , 2003 .

[32]  R. MacQueen,et al.  National-Center Atmospheric Research , 1980 .

[33]  Nathan Collier,et al.  The Community Land Model Version 5: Description of New Features, Benchmarking, and Impact of Forcing Uncertainty , 2019, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[34]  R. Schnur,et al.  Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C , 2006 .

[35]  William J. Sacks,et al.  Effects of global irrigation on the near-surface climate , 2009 .

[36]  P. Cox,et al.  Emergent constraints on climate‐carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system models , 2014 .

[37]  Naota Hanasaki,et al.  GSWP-2 Multimodel Analysis and Implications for Our Perception of the Land Surface , 2006 .

[38]  T. Stocker,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. An overview of the Working Group 1 contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). , 2013 .

[39]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Twenty-First-Century Compatible CO2 Emissions and Airborne Fraction Simulated by CMIP5 Earth System Models under Four Representative Concentration Pathways , 2013, Journal of Climate.

[40]  Matthew J. Smith,et al.  Microbial models with data‐driven parameters predict stronger soil carbon responses to climate change , 2015, Global change biology.

[41]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Carbon cycle feedbacks and future climate change , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[42]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  The global carbon budget 1959-2011 , 2012 .

[43]  Y. Malhi,et al.  Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: A mechanistic, globally applicable model of plant nitrogen uptake, retranslocation, and fixation , 2010 .

[44]  D. S. Ward,et al.  Quantifying the role of fire in the Earth system – Part 1: Improved global fire modeling in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1) , 2012 .

[45]  S. Levis,et al.  Corrigendum to "A process-based fire parameterization of intermediate complexity in a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model" published in Biogeosciences, 9, 2761–2780, 2012 , 2012 .

[46]  M. Mauritz,et al.  Nonlinear CO2 flux response to 7 years of experimentally induced permafrost thaw , 2017, Global change biology.

[47]  Matthew J. Smith,et al.  Transient dynamics of terrestrial carbon storage: mathematical foundation and its applications , 2017 .

[48]  S. Sitch,et al.  Sources of uncertainty in modeled land carbon storage within and across three MIPs: diagnosis with three new techniques. , 2018 .

[49]  Zeng Qingcun,et al.  A land surface model (IAP94) for climate studies part I: Formulation and validation in off-line experiments , 1997 .

[50]  B. Bonan,et al.  A Land Surface Model (LSM Version 1.0) for Ecological, Hydrological, and Atmospheric Studies: Technical Description and User's Guide , 1996 .

[51]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Global Carbon Budget 2019 , 2019, Earth System Science Data.

[52]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization , 2015 .

[53]  Yiqi Luo,et al.  Carbon–nitrogen coupling under three schemes of model representation: a traceability analysis , 2018, Geoscientific Model Development.

[54]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change , 2012 .

[55]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Contribution of permafrost soils to the global carbon budget , 2013 .

[56]  Josep G. Canadell,et al.  Sustainability of terrestrial carbon sequestration: A case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach , 2003 .

[57]  Robert Jacob,et al.  Modeling agriculture in the Community Land Model , 2012 .

[58]  Ann Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Biosphere-atmosphere transfer scheme(BATS) version 1e as coupled to the NCAR community climate model , 1993 .