| 1. |
- Bigelow, NH, et al.
(author)
-
Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55 degrees N between the last glacial maximum, mid-Holocene, and present
- 2003
-
In: Journal of Geophysical Research. - 2156-2202. ; 108:D19
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- [1] A unified scheme to assign pollen samples to vegetation types was used to reconstruct vegetation patterns north of 55degreesN at the last glacial maximum (LGM) and mid-Holocene (6000 years B. P.). The pollen data set assembled for this purpose represents a comprehensive compilation based on the work of many projects and research groups. Five tundra types (cushion forb tundra, graminoid and forb tundra, prostrate dwarf-shrub tundra, erect dwarf-shrub tundra, and low- and high-shrub tundra) were distinguished and mapped on the basis of modern pollen surface samples. The tundra-forest boundary and the distributions of boreal and temperate forest types today were realistically reconstructed. During the mid-Holocene the tundra-forest boundary was north of its present position in some regions, but the pattern of this shift was strongly asymmetrical around the pole, with the largest northward shift in central Siberia (similar to200 km), little change in Beringia, and a southward shift in Keewatin and Labrador (similar to200 km). Low- and high-shrub tundra extended farther north than today. At the LGM, forests were absent from high latitudes. Graminoid and forb tundra abutted on temperate steppe in northwestern Eurasia while prostrate dwarf-shrub, erect dwarf-shrub, and graminoid and forb tundra formed a mosaic in Beringia. Graminoid and forb tundra is restricted today and does not form a large continuous biome, but the pollen data show that it was far more extensive at the LGM, while low- and high-shrub tundra were greatly reduced, illustrating the potential for climate change to dramatically alter the relative areas occupied by different vegetation types.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Sitch, S, et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model
- 2003
-
In: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley. - 1354-1013. ; 9:2, s. 161-185
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Lund-Potsdam-Jena Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (LPJ) combines process-based, large-scale representations of terrestrial vegetation dynamics and land-atmosphere carbon and water exchanges in a modular framework. Features include feedback through canopy conductance between photosynthesis and transpiration and interactive coupling between these 'fast' processes and other ecosystem processes including resource competition, tissue turnover, population dynamics, soil organic matter and litter dynamics and fire disturbance. Ten plants functional types (PFTs) are differentiated by physiological, morphological, phenological, bioclimatic and fire-response attributes. Resource competition and differential responses to fire between PFTs influence their relative fractional cover from year to year. Photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and soil water dynamics are modelled on a daily time step, while vegetation structure and PFT population densities are updated annually. Simulations have been made over the industrial period both for specific sites where field measurements were available for model evaluation, and globally on a 0.5degrees x 0.5degrees grid. Modelled vegetation patterns are consistent with observations, including remotely sensed vegetation structure and phenology. Seasonal cycles of net ecosystem exchange and soil moisture compare well with local measurements. Global carbon exchange fields used as input to an atmospheric tracer transport model (TM2) provided a good fit to observed seasonal cycles of CO2 concentration at all latitudes. Simulated inter-annual variability of the global terrestrial carbon balance is in phase with and comparable in amplitude to observed variability in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 . Global terrestrial carbon and water cycle parameters (pool sizes and fluxes) lie within their accepted ranges. The model is being used to study past, present and future terrestrial ecosystem dynamics, biochemical and biophysical interactions between ecosystems and the atmosphere, and as a component of coupled Earth system models.
|
|
