Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface
model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools and turnover in temperate forests
Authors: Montané Francesc , Fox Andrew M. , Arellano Avelino F. , MacBean Natasha , Alexander M. Ross , Dye Alex , Bishop Daniel A. , Trouet Valerie , Babst Flurin , Hessl Amy E. , Pederson Neil , Blanken Peter D. , Bohrer Gil , Gough Christopher M. , Litvak Marcy E. , Novick Kimberly A. , Phillips Richard P. , Wood Jeffrey D. , Moore David J. P. 
Published: March 2017

Abstract. How carbon (C) is allocated to different plant tissues (leaves, stem and roots) determines C residence time and thus remains a central challenge for understanding the global C cycle. We used a diverse set of observations (AmeriFlux eddy covariance tower observations, biomass estimates from tree-ring data, and Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements) to compare C fluxes, pools, and LAI data with those predicted by a Land Surface Model (LSM), the Community Land Model (CLM4.5). We ran CLM for nine temperate (including evergreen and deciduous) forests in North America between 1980 and 2013 using four different C allocation schemes: i) Dynamic C allocation scheme (named "D-CLM") with one dynamic allometric parameter, which allocates C to the stem and leaves to vary in time as a function of annual Net Primary Production (NPP). ii) An alternative dynamic C allocation scheme (named "D-Litton"), where, similar to (i) C allocation is a dynamic function of annual NPP, but unlike (i) includes two dynamic allometric parameters involving allocation to leaves, stem and coarse roots iii–iv) Two fixed C allocation schemes, one representative of observations in evergreen (named "F-Evergreen") and the other of observations in deciduous forests (named "F-Deciduous"). D-CLM generally overestimated Gross Primary Production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration, and underestimated Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE). In D-CLM, initial aboveground biomass in 1980 was largely overestimated (between 10527 and 12897 g Cm-2) for deciduous forests, whereas aboveground biomass accumulation through time (between 1980 and 2011) was highly underestimated (between 1222 and 7557 g Cm-2) for both evergreen and deciduous sites due to a lower stem turnover rate in the sites than the one used in the model. D-CLM overestimated LAI in both evergreen and deciduous sites because the leaf C-LAI relationship in the model did not match the observed leaf C-LAI relationship at our sites. Although the four C allocation schemes gave similar results for aggregated C fluxes, they translated to important differences in long-term aboveground biomass accumulation and aboveground NPP. For deciduous forests, D-Litton gave more realistic Cstem/Cleaf ratios and strongly reduced the overestimation of initial aboveground biomass, and aboveground NPP for deciduous forests by D-CLM. We identified key structural and parameterization deficits that need refinement to improve the accuracy of LSMs in the near future. That could be done by addressing some of the current model assumptions about C allocation and the associated parameter uncertainty. Our results highlight the importance of using aboveground biomass data to evaluate and constrain the C allocation scheme in the model, and in particular, the sensitivity to the stem turnover rate. Revising these will be critical to improving long-term C processes in LSMs, and improve their projections of biomass accumulation in forests.