Qianlai Zhuang


2022

DOI bib
Characterizing performance of freshwater wetland methane models across time scales at FLUXNET-CH4 sites using wavelet analyses
Zhen Zhang, Sheel Bansal, Kuang‐Yu Chang, Etienne Fluet‐Chouinard, Kyle Delwiche, Mathias Goeckede, A. F. Gustafson, Sara Knox, Antti Leppänen, Licheng Liu, Jinxun Liu, Avni Malhotra, Tiina Markkanen, Gavin McNicol, Joe R. Melton, Paul Miller, Changhui Peng, Maarit Raivonen, W. J. Riley, Oliver Sonnentag, Tuula Aalto, Rodrigo Vargas, Wenxin Zhang, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, Qianlai Zhuang, L. Windham‐Myers, Robert B. Jackson, Benjamin Poulter

Process-based land surface models are important tools for estimating global wetland methane (CH4) emissions and projecting their behavior across space and time. So far there are no performance assessments of model responses to drivers at multiple time scales. In this study, we apply wavelet analysis to identify the dominant time scales contributing to model uncertainty in the frequency domain. We evaluate seven wetland models at 23 eddy covariance tower sites. Our study first characterizes site-level patterns of freshwater wetland CH4 fluxes (FCH4) at different time scales. A Monte Carlo approach has been developed to incorporate flux observation error to avoid misidentification of the time scales that dominate model error. Our results suggest that 1) significant model-observation disagreements are mainly at short- to intermediate time scales (< 15 days); 2) most of the models can capture the CH4 variability at long time scales (> 32 days) for the boreal and Arctic tundra wetland sites but have limited performance for temperate and tropical/subtropical sites; 3) model error approximates pink noise patterns, indicating that biases at short time scales (< 5 days) could contribute to persistent systematic biases on longer time scales; and 4) differences in error pattern are related to model structure (e.g. proxy of CH4 production). Our evaluation suggests the need to accurately replicate FCH4 variability in future wetland CH4 model developments.

2019

DOI bib
Large loss of CO2 in winter observed across the northern permafrost region
Susan M. Natali, Jennifer D. Watts, Brendan M. Rogers, Stefano Potter, S. Ludwig, A. K. Selbmann, Patrick F. Sullivan, Benjamin W. Abbott, Kyle A. Arndt, Leah Birch, Mats P. Björkman, A. Anthony Bloom, Gerardo Celis, Torben R. Christensen, Casper T. Christiansen, R. Commane, Elisabeth J. Cooper, P. M. Crill, C. I. Czimczik, S. P. Davydov, Jinyang Du, J. E. Egan, Bo Elberling, E. S. Euskirchen, Thomas Friborg, Hélène Genet, Mathias Göckede, Jordan P. Goodrich, Paul Grogan, Manuel Helbig, Elchin Jafarov, Julie Jastrow, Aram Kalhori, Yongwon Kim, John S. Kimball, Lars Kutzbach, Mark J. Lara, Klaus Steenberg Larsen, Bang-Yong Lee, Zhihua Liu, M. M. Loranty, Magnus Lund, Massimo Lupascu, Nima Madani, Avni Malhotra, Roser Matamala, Jack W. McFarland, A. David McGuire, Anders Michelsen, Christina Minions, Walter C. Oechel, David Olefeldt, Frans‐Jan W. Parmentier, Norbert Pirk, Benjamin Poulter, W. L. Quinton, Fereidoun Rezanezhad, David Risk, Torsten Sachs, Kevin Schaefer, Niels Martin Schmidt, Edward A. G. Schuur, Philipp Semenchuk, Gaius R. Shaver, Oliver Sonnentag, Gregory Starr, Claire C. Treat, Mark P. Waldrop, Yihui Wang, J. M. Welker, Christian Wille, Xiaofeng Xu, Zhen Zhang, Qianlai Zhuang, Donatella Zona
Nature Climate Change, Volume 9, Issue 11

Recent warming in the Arctic, which has been amplified during the winter1-3, greatly enhances microbial decomposition of soil organic matter and subsequent release of carbon dioxide (CO2)4. However, the amount of CO2 released in winter is highly uncertain and has not been well represented by ecosystem models or by empirically-based estimates5,6. Here we synthesize regional in situ observations of CO2 flux from arctic and boreal soils to assess current and future winter carbon losses from the northern permafrost domain. We estimate a contemporary loss of 1662 Tg C yr-1 from the permafrost region during the winter season (October through April). This loss is greater than the average growing season carbon uptake for this region estimated from process models (-1032 Tg C yr-1). Extending model predictions to warmer conditions in 2100 indicates that winter CO2 emissions will increase 17% under a moderate mitigation scenario-Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5-and 41% under business-as-usual emissions scenario-RCP 8.5. Our results provide a new baseline for winter CO2 emissions from northern terrestrial regions and indicate that enhanced soil CO2 loss due to winter warming may offset growing season carbon uptake under future climatic conditions.
Search
Co-authors
Venues