Biophysical consequences of photosynthetic temperature acclimation for climate

Photosynthetic temperature acclimation is a commonly observed process that is increasingly being incorporated into Earth System Models (ESMs). While short‐term acclimation has been shown to increase carbon storage in the future, it is uncertain whether acclimation will directly influence simulated future climate through biophysical mechanisms. Here, we used coupled atmosphere‐biosphere simulations using the Community Earth System Model (CESM) to assess how acclimation‐induced changes in photosynthesis influence global climate under present‐day and future (RCP 8.5) conditions. We ran four 30 year simulations that differed only in sea surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 (present or future) and whether a mechanism for photosynthetic temperature acclimation was included (yes or no). Acclimation increased future photosynthesis and, consequently, the proportion of energy returned to the atmosphere as latent heat, resulting in reduced surface air temperatures in areas and seasons where acclimation caused the biggest increase in photosynthesis. However, this was partially offset by temperature increases elsewhere, resulting in a small, but significant, global cooling of 0.05°C in the future, similar to that expected from acclimation‐induced increases in future land carbon storage found in previous studies. In the present‐day simulations, the photosynthetic response was not as strong and cooling in highly vegetated regions was less than warming elsewhere, leading to a net global increase in temperatures of 0.04°C. Precipitation responses were variable and rates did not change globally in either time period. These results, combined with carbon‐cycle effects, suggest that models without acclimation may be overestimating positive feedbacks between climate and the land surface in the future.

[1]  S. Malyshev,et al.  Foliar temperature acclimation reduces simulated carbon sensitivity to climate , 2016 .

[2]  G. Bonan,et al.  Temperature acclimation of photosynthesis and respiration: A key uncertainty in the carbon cycle‐climate feedback , 2015 .

[3]  S. Reed,et al.  Urgent need for warming experiments in tropical forests , 2015, Global change biology.

[4]  Michael J. Aspinwall,et al.  The capacity to cope with climate warming declines from temperate to tropical latitudes in two widely distributed Eucalyptus species , 2015, Global change biology.

[5]  K. Hikosaka,et al.  Temperature response of photosynthesis in C3, C4, and CAM plants: temperature acclimation and temperature adaptation , 2014, Photosynthesis Research.

[6]  D. Way,et al.  Thermal acclimation of photosynthesis: on the importance of adjusting our definitions and accounting for thermal acclimation of respiration , 2013, Photosynthesis Research.

[7]  Nicholas G Smith,et al.  Plant respiration and photosynthesis in global‐scale models: incorporating acclimation to temperature and CO2 , 2013, Global change biology.

[8]  A. Arneth,et al.  Future challenges of representing land-processes in studies on land-atmosphere interactions , 2012 .

[9]  R. Betts,et al.  High sensitivity of future global warming to land carbon cycle processes , 2012 .

[10]  Dara Entekhabi,et al.  The Diurnal Behavior of Evaporative Fraction in the Soil-Vegetation-Atmospheric Boundary Layer Continuum , 2011 .

[11]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions , 2011 .

[12]  Sebastian Leuzinger,et al.  How do we improve Earth system models? Integrating Earth system models, ecosystem models, experiments and long-term data. 1st INTERFACE workshop, Captiva Island, FL, USA, 28 February-3 March 2011. , 2011, The New phytologist.

[13]  Paolo De Angelis,et al.  Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance , 2011 .

[14]  Markus Reichstein,et al.  Improving canopy processes in the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) using global flux fields empirically inferred from FLUXNET data , 2011 .

[15]  W. Knorr,et al.  Improving the predictability of global CO2 assimilation rates under climate change , 2011 .

[16]  E. Kruger,et al.  Thermal acclimation of photosynthesis: a comparison of boreal and temperate tree species along a latitudinal transect. , 2010, Plant, cell & environment.

[17]  Ram Oren,et al.  Differential responses to changes in growth temperature between trees from different functional groups and biomes: a review and synthesis of data. , 2010, Tree physiology.

[18]  A. Friend,et al.  Terrestrial plant production and climate change. , 2010, Journal of experimental botany.

[19]  R. McMurtrie,et al.  CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  A. Rogers,et al.  Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. , 2009, Journal of experimental botany.

[21]  G. Bonan Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests , 2008, Science.

[22]  Jens Kattge,et al.  Temperature acclimation in a biochemical model of photosynthesis: a reanalysis of data from 36 species. , 2007, Plant, cell & environment.

[23]  S. Long,et al.  What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. , 2004, The New phytologist.

[24]  Carl J. Bernacchi,et al.  In vivo temperature response functions of parameters required to model RuBP-limited photosynthesis , 2003 .

[25]  J. Read,et al.  Comparison of temperate and tropical rainforest tree species: photosynthetic responses to growth temperature , 2002, Oecologia.

[26]  Ray Leuning,et al.  Temperature dependence of two parameters in a photosynthesis model , 2002 .

[27]  Carl J. Bernacchi,et al.  Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco‐limited photosynthesis , 2001 .

[28]  R. Betts,et al.  The impact of new land surface physics on the GCM simulation of climate and climate sensitivity , 1999 .

[29]  B. Drake,et al.  MORE EFFICIENT PLANTS: A Consequence of Rising Atmospheric CO2? , 1997, Annual review of plant physiology and plant molecular biology.

[30]  D. Randall,et al.  A Revised Land Surface Parameterization (SiB2) for Atmospheric GCMS. Part I: Model Formulation , 1996 .

[31]  G. J. Collatz,et al.  Comparison of Radiative and Physiological Effects of Doubled Atmospheric CO2 on Climate , 1996, Science.

[32]  R. Leuning A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal‐photosynthesis model for C3 plants , 1995 .

[33]  G. Collatz,et al.  Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer , 1991 .

[34]  J. Berry,et al.  A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species , 1980, Planta.

[35]  J. Berry,et al.  Photosynthetic Response and Adaptation to Temperature in Higher Plants , 1980 .

[36]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[37]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Technical description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM) , 2013 .

[38]  R. Norby,et al.  Acclimation of photosynthesis and respiration to simulated climatic warming in northern and southern populations of Acer saccharum: laboratory and field evidence. , 2000, Tree physiology.

[39]  G. Collatz,et al.  Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants , 1992 .

[40]  I. E. Woodrow,et al.  A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions , 1987 .