4.8 Article

Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis

Journal

SCIENCE
Volume 370, Issue 6522, Pages 1295-+

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abb7772

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFA0600202]
  2. Jiangsu Provincial NSF [BK20170018]
  3. General Program of Natural Science Foundation of China [42071388]
  4. European Research Council Synergy grant [ERC-SyG-2013-610028]
  5. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [821003]
  6. SNSF [20020_172476]
  7. U.S. National Science Foundation [1903722, 1243232]
  8. NASA Terrestrial Ecosystems Grant [80NSSC19M0103]
  9. U.S. NOAA [NA18OAR4310266]
  10. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme - BEIS
  11. Defra
  12. Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (Resource and Environmental Sciences)
  13. Directorate For Geosciences
  14. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1243232] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The enhanced vegetation productivity driven by increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) [i.e., the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE)] sustains an important negative feedback on climate warming, but the temporal dynamics of CFE remain unclear. Using multiple long-term satellite- and ground-based datasets, we showed that global CFE has declined across most terrestrial regions of the globe from 1982 to 2015, correlating well with changing nutrient concentrations and availability of soil water. Current carbon cycle models also demonstrate a declining CFE trend, albeit one substantially weaker than that from the global observations. This declining trend in the forcing of terrestrial carbon sinks by increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 implies a weakening negative feedback on the climatic system and increased societal dependence on future strategies to mitigate climate warming.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available