Plant phenology—the timing of cyclic or recurrent biological events in plants—offers insight into the ecology, evolution, and seasonality of plant-mediated ecosystem processes. Traditionally studied phenologies are readily apparent, such as flowering events, germination timing, and season-initiating budbreak. However, a broad range of phenologies that are fundamental to the ecology and evolution of plants, and to global biogeochemical cycles and climate change predictions, have been neglected because they are “cryptic”—that is, hidden from view (e.g., root production) or difficult to distinguish and interpret based on common measurements at typical scales of examination (e.g., leaf turnover in evergreen forests). We illustrate how capturing cryptic phenology can advance scientific understanding with two case studies: wood phenology in a deciduous forest of the northeastern USA and leaf phenology in tropical evergreen forests of Amazonia. Drawing on these case studies and other literature, we argue that conceptualizing and characterizing cryptic plant phenology is needed for understanding and accurate prediction at many scales from organisms to ecosystems. We recommend avenues of empirical and modeling research to accelerate discovery of cryptic phenological patterns, to understand their causes and consequences, and to represent these processes in terrestrial biosphere models.

Global and regional projections of climate change by Earth system models are limited by their uncertain estimates of terrestrial ecosystem productivity. At the middle to low latitudes, the East Asian monsoon region has higher productivity than forests in Europe‐Africa and North America, but its estimate by current generation of terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) has seldom been systematically evaluated. Here, we developed a traceability framework to evaluate the simulated gross primary productivity (GPP) by 15 TBMs in the East Asian monsoon region. The framework links GPP to net primary productivity, biomass, leaf area and back to GPP via incorporating multiple vegetation functional properties of carbon‐use efficiency (CUE), vegetation C turnover time (τveg), leaf C fraction (Fleaf), specific leaf area (SLA), and leaf area index (LAI)‐level photosynthesis (PLAI), respectively. We then applied a relative importance algorithm to attribute intermodel variation at each node. The results showed that large intermodel variation in GPP over 1901–2010 were mainly propagated from their different representation of vegetation functional properties. For example, SLA explained 77% of the intermodel difference in leaf area, which contributed 90% to the simulated GPP differences. In addition, the models simulated higher CUE (18.1 ± 21.3%), τveg (18.2 ± 26.9%), and SLA (27.4±36.5%) than observations, leading to the overestimation of simulated GPP across the East Asian monsoon region. These results suggest the large uncertainty of current TBMs in simulating GPP is largely propagated from their poor representation of the vegetation functional properties and call for a better understanding of the covariations between plant functional properties in terrestrial ecosystems.

Plants use only a fraction of their photosynthetically derived carbon for biomass production (BP). The biomass production efficiency (BPE), defined as the ratio of BP to photosynthesis, and its variation across and within vegetation types is poorly understood, which hinders our capacity to accurately estimate carbon turnover times and carbon sinks. Here, we present a new global estimation of BPE obtained by combining field measurements from 113 sites with 14 carbon cycle models. Our best estimate of global BPE is 0.41 ± 0.05, excluding cropland. The largest BPE is found in boreal forests (0.48 ± 0.06) and the lowest in tropical forests (0.40 ± 0.04). Carbon cycle models overestimate BPE, although models with carbon-nitrogen interactions tend to be more realistic. Using observation-based estimates of global photosynthesis, we quantify the global BP of non-cropland ecosystems of 41 ± 6 Pg C/year. This flux is less than net primary production as it does not contain carbon allocated to symbionts, used for exudates or volatile carbon compound emissions to the atmosphere. Our study reveals a positive bias of 24 ± 11% in the model-estimated BP (10 of 14 models). When correcting models for this bias while leaving modeled carbon turnover times unchanged, we found that the global ecosystem carbon storage change during the last century is decreased by 67% (or 58 Pg C).

The Community Land Model (CLM) is the land component of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) and is used in several global and regional modeling systems. In this paper, we introduce model developments included in CLM version 5 (CLM5), which is the default land component for CESM2. We assess an ensemble of simulations, including prescribed and prognostic vegetation state, multiple forcing data sets, and CLM4, CLM4.5, and CLM5, against a range of metrics including from the International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMBv2) package. CLM5 includes new and updated processes and parameterizations: (1) dynamic land units, (2) updated parameterizations and structure for hydrology and snow (spatially explicit soil depth, dry surface layer, revised groundwater scheme, revised canopy interception and canopy snow processes, updated fresh snow density, simple firn model, and Model for Scale Adaptive River Transport), (3) plant hydraulics and hydraulic redistribution, (4) revised nitrogen cycling (flexible leaf stoichiometry, leaf N optimization for photosynthesis, and carbon costs for plant nitrogen uptake), (5) global crop model with six crop types and time‐evolving irrigated areas and fertilization rates, (6) updated urban building energy, (7) carbon isotopes, and (8) updated stomatal physiology. New optional features include demographically structured dynamic vegetation model (Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator), ozone damage to plants, and fire trace gas emissions coupling to the atmosphere. Conclusive establishment of improvement or degradation of individual variables or metrics is challenged by forcing uncertainty, parametric uncertainty, and model structural complexity, but the multivariate metrics presented here suggest a general broad improvement from CLM4 to CLM5.