Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trait-Based Modeling of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Advances and Challenges Under Global Change

  • Advances and Future Directions in Earth System Modelling (I Simpson, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Climate Change Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We summarize the general structure of modern terrestrial ecosystem models and investigate how advances in trait-based modeling approaches help to better constrain predictions for ecosystem sensitivity to global change.

Recent Findings

In ecosystem models, empirical parameters are increasingly being replaced with plant physiological trait-based parameters, which can be directly measured in the field. The needs to predict long-term terrestrial ecosystem dynamics under climate change have spurred novel model developments including the representation of (i) vegetation processes across the critical zone, (ii) wood and belowground ecophysiology, and (iii) the effects of physiological trait acclimation.

Summary

Trait-based modeling of terrestrial ecosystems allows for the direct integration of measured plant ecophysiology with model processes, increasing the potential to constrain uncertainty and improve predictions under novel climate regimes. However, such increased model complexity requires careful model design, standardized intercomparisons, and benchmarking for model responses to both climate extremes and long-term trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis: Island press United States of America; 2005.

  2. Friedlingstein P, Jones MW, O’Sullivan M, et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2019;11:1783–838.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Poulter B, Frank D, Ciais P, Myneni RB, Andela N, Bi J, et al. Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle. Nature. 2014;509:600–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Field CB, Lobell DB, Peters HA, Chiariello NR. Feedbacks of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2007;32:1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bonan GB, Doney SC (2018) Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: the challenge to predict life in earth system models. Science (80- ). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8328.

  6. Foley JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Levis S, Pollard D, Sitch S, et al. An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes, terrestrial carbon balance, and vegetation dynamics. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 1996;10:603–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Saponara J, Silander JA, Kobe RK, Ribbens E. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol Monogr. 1996;66:1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shugart HH, Wang B, Fischer R, Ma J, Fang J, Yan X, et al. Gap models and their individual-based relatives in the assessment of the consequences of global change. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13:033001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. • Fisher RA, Koven CD, Anderegg WRL, et al. Vegetation demographics in earth system models: a review of progress and priorities. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24:35–54 The review discusses implementations and challenges of vegetation demography, a key driver of ecosystem heterogeneity among mainstream ecosystem models.

    Google Scholar 

  10. • Falster DS, Duursma RA, FitzJohn RG. How functional traits influence plant growth and shade tolerance across the life cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E6789–98 This study uses an elegant theoretical framework to identify a key set of traits that interact to influence plant growth rates under heterogenous light condition.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dietze MC. Prediction in ecology: a first-principles framework: A. Ecol Appl. 2017;27:2048–60.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher RA, Muszala S, Verteinstein M, Lawrence P, Xu C, McDowell NG, et al. Taking off the training wheels: the properties of a dynamic vegetation model without climate envelopes, CLM4.5(ED). Geosci Model Dev. 2015;8:3593–619.

    Google Scholar 

  13. • Fer I, Kelly R, Moorcroft PR, Richardson AD, Cowdery EM, Dietze MC. Linking big models to big data: efficient ecosystem model calibration through Bayesian model emulation. Biogeosciences. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5801-2018Advances in integrating trait and other observations with ecosystem models in a Bayesian framework.

  14. Mencuccini M, Manzoni S, Christoffersen B. Modelling water fluxes in plants: from tissues to biosphere. New Phytol. 2019;222:1207–22.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Peng B, Guan K, Tang J, Ainsworth EA, Asseng S, Bernacchi CJ, et al. Towards a multiscale crop modelling framework for climate change adaptation assessment. Nat plants. 2020;6:338–48.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Smith NG, Keenan TF, Colin Prentice I, Wang H, Wright IJ, Niinemets Ü, et al. Global photosynthetic capacity is optimized to the environment. Ecol Lett. 2019;22:506–17.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Poorter H, Niinemets Ü, Ntagkas N, Siebenkäs A, Mäenpää M, Matsubara S, et al. A meta-analysis of plant responses to light intensity for 70 traits ranging from molecules to whole plant performance. New Phytol. 2019;223:1073–105.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kattge J, Knorr W. Temperature acclimation in a biochemical model of photosynthesis: a reanalysis of data from 36 species. Plant Cell Environ. 2007;30:1176–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Manzoni S, Vico G, Katul G, Fay PA, Polley W, Palmroth S, et al. Optimizing stomatal conductance for maximum carbon gain under water stress: a meta-analysis across plant functional types and climates. Funct Ecol. 2011;25:456–67.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Niinemets Ü, Keenan TF, Hallik L. A worldwide analysis of within-canopy variations in leaf structural, chemical and physiological traits across plant functional types. New Phytol. 2015;205:973–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mackay DS, Savoy PR, Grossiord C, Tai X, Pleban JR, Wang DR, et al. Conifers depend on established roots during drought: results from a coupled model of carbon allocation and hydraulics. New Phytol. 2020;225:679–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Waring BG, Powers JS. Overlooking what is underground: root:shoot ratios and coarse root allometric equations for tropical forests. For Ecol Manag. 2017;385:10–5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Holbrook NM, Putz FE. Influence of neighbors on tree form: effects of lateral shade and prevention of sway on the allometry of Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum). Am J Bot. 1989;76:1740–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chave J, Réjou-Méchain M, Búrquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan MS, Delitti WBC, et al. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20:3177–90.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Atkin OK, Bruhn D, Hurry VM, Tjoelker MG. Evans review no. 2 - the hot and the cold: unravelling the variable response of plant respiration to temperature. Funct Plant Biol. 2005;32:87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Domec JC, Palmroth S, Ward E, Maier CA, ThÉrézien M, Oren R. Acclimation of leaf hydraulic conductance and stomatal conductance of Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) to long-term growth in elevated CO2 (free-air CO2 enrichment) and N-fertilization. Plant Cell Environ. 2009;32:1500–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bartlett MK, Zhang Y, Kreidler N, Sun S, Ardy R, Cao K, et al. Global analysis of plasticity in turgor loss point, a key drought tolerance trait. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:1580–90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dietze MC, Serbin SP, Davidson C, Desai AR, Feng X, Kelly R, et al. A quantitative assessment of a terrestrial biosphere model’s data needs across north American biomes. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2014;119:286–300.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rogers A, Medlyn BE, Dukes JS, Bonan G, von Caemmerer S, Dietze MC, et al. A roadmap for improving the representation of photosynthesis in earth system models. New Phytol. 2017;213:22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Richardson AD, Keenan TF, Migliavacca M, Ryu Y, Sonnentag O, Toomey M. Climate change, phenology, and phenological control of vegetation feedbacks to the climate system. Agric For Meteorol. 2013;169:156–73.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Richardson AD, Anderson RS, Arain MA, Barr AG, Bohrer G, Chen G, et al. Terrestrial biosphere models need better representation of vegetation phenology: results from the north American carbon program site synthesis. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:566–84.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Warren JM, Hanson PJ, Iversen CM, Kumar J, Walker AP, Wullschleger SD. Root structural and functional dynamics in terrestrial biosphere models - evaluation and recommendations. New Phytol. 2015;205:59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Trugman AT, Medvigy D, Hoffmann WA, Pellegrini FA. Sensitivity of woody carbon stocks to bark investment strategy in Neotropical savannas and forests. Biogeosciences. 2018;15:233–43.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wang B, Shugart HH, Lerdau MT. An individual-based model of forest volatile organic compound emissions—UVAFME-VOC v1.0. Ecol Model. 2017;350:69–78.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fisher R, McDowell N, Purves D, Moorcroft P, Sitch S, Cox P, et al. Assessing uncertainties in a second-generation dynamic vegetation model caused by ecological scale limitations. New Phytol. 2010;187:666–81.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Trugman AT, Fenton NJ, Bergeron Y, Xu X, Welp LR, Medvigy D. Climate, soil organic layer, and nitrogen jointly drive forest development after fire in the North American boreal zone. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2016;8:1180–209.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Körner C (2017) A matter of tree longevity. Science (80- ). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2449.

  38. • Bugmann H, Seidl R, Hartig F, et al. Tree mortality submodels drive simulated long-term forest dynamics: assessing 15 models from the stand to global scale. Ecosphere. 2019;10:e02616 Intercomparison of mortality modules among various ecosystem models.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson DJ, Needham J, Xu C, Massoud EC, Davies SJ, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, et al. Climate sensitive size-dependent survival in tropical trees. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2:1436–42.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Powell TL, Galbraith DR, Christoffersen BO, Harper A, Imbuzeiro HMA, Rowland L, et al. Confronting model predictions of carbon fluxes with measurements of Amazon forests subjected to experimental drought. New Phytol. 2013;200:350–65.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Longo M, Knox RG, Medvigy DM, Levine NM, Dietze MC, Kim Y, et al. The biophysics, ecology, and biogeochemistry of functionally diverse, vertically and horizontally heterogeneous ecosystems: the ecosystem demography model, version 2.2-part 1: model description. Geosci Model Dev. 2019;12:4309–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. McDowell N, Allen CD, Anderson-Teixeira K, Brando P, Brienen R, Chambers J, et al. Drivers and mechanisms of tree mortality in moist tropical forests. New Phytol. 2018;219:851–69.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2014;45:471–93.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sakschewski B, Von Bloh W, Boit A, Poorter L, Peña-Claros M, Heinke J, et al. Resilience of Amazon forests emerges from plant trait diversity. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:1032–6.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sakschewski B, von Bloh W, Boit A, Rammig A, Kattge J, Poorter L, et al. Leaf and stem economics spectra drive diversity of functional plant traits in a dynamic global vegetation model. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21:2711–25.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Xu X, Medvigy D, Powers JS, Becknell JM, Guan K. Diversity in plant hydraulic traits explains seasonal and inter-annual variations of vegetation dynamics in seasonally dry tropical forests. New Phytol. 2016;212:80–95.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rüger N, Condit R, Dent DH, DeWalt SJ, Hubbell SP, Lichstein JW, Lopez OR, Wirth C, Farrior CE (2020) Demographic trade-offs predict tropical forest dynamics. Science (80- ) 368:165–168.

  48. di Porcia e Brugnera M, Meunier F, Longo M, Krishna Moorthy SM, De Deurwaerder H, Schnitzer SA, et al. Modeling the impact of liana infestation on the demography and carbon cycle of tropical forests. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25:3767–80.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Quesada CA, Phillips OL, Schwarz M, Czimczik CI, Baker TR, Patiño S, et al. Basin-wide variations in Amazon forest structure and function are mediated by both soils and climate. Biogeosciences. 2012;9:2203–46.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Steidinger BS, Crowther TW, Liang J, et al. Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature. 2019;569:404–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bennett AC, Mcdowell NG, Allen CD, Anderson-Teixeira KJ. Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide. Nat Plants. 2015;1:15139.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Levine NM, Zhang K, Longo M, Baccini A, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, et al. Ecosystem heterogeneity determines the ecological resilience of the Amazon to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:793–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Longo M, Knox RG, Levine NM, Alves LF, Bonal D, Camargo PB, et al. Ecosystem heterogeneity and diversity mitigate Amazon forest resilience to frequent extreme droughts. New Phytol. 2018;219:914–31.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Farrior CE, Bohlman SA, Hubbell S, Pacala SW (2016) Dominance of the suppressed: power-law size structure in tropical forests. Science (80- ) 351:155–157.

  55. Hantson S, Arneth A, Harrison SP, Kelley DI, Prentice IC, Rabin SS, et al. The status and challenge of global fire modelling. Biogeosciences. 2016;13:3359–75.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sitch S, Huntingford C, Gedney N, et al. Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs). Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14:2015–39.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rabin SS, Melton JR, Lasslop G, Bachelet D, Forrest M, Hantson S, et al. The fire modeling Intercomparison project (FireMIP), phase 1: experimental and analytical protocols with detailed model descriptions. Geosci Model Dev. 2017;10:1175–97.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Baudena M, Dekker SC, Van Bodegom PM, et al. Forests, savannas, and grasslands: bridging the knowledge gap between ecology and dynamic global vegetation models. Biogeosciences. 2015;12:1833–48.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sanderson BM, Fisher RA. A fiery wake-up call for climate science. Nat Clim Chang. 2020;10:175–7.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA, Senior CA, Stevens B, Stouffer RJ, et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9:1937–58.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Anyomi KA, Mitchell SJ, Ruel JC. Windthrow modelling in old-growth and multi-layered boreal forests. Ecol Model. 2016;327:105–14.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gora EM, Muller-Landau HC, Burchfield JC, Bitzer PM, Hubbell SP, Yanoviak SP. A mechanistic and empirically supported lightning risk model for forest trees. J Ecol. 2020;1365-2745:13404.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Berzaghi F, Longo M, Ciais P, Blake S, Bretagnolle F, Vieira S, et al. Carbon stocks in central African forests enhanced by elephant disturbance. Nat Geosci. 2019;12:725–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Medvigy D, Clark KL, Skowronski NS, Schäfer KVR. Simulated impacts of insect defoliation on forest carbon dynamics. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045703.

  65. Lawrence DM, Hurtt GC, Arneth A, Brovkin V, Calvin KV, Jones AD, et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9:2973–98.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sellers PJ, Mintz Y, Sud YC, Dalcher A. A simple biosphere model (SiB) for use within general circulation models. J Atmos Sci. 1986;43:505–31.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bonan GB, Lawrence PJ, Oleson KW, Levis S, Jung M, Reichstein M, et al. Improving canopy processes in the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) using global flux fields empirically inferred from FLUXNET data. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2011;116:G02014.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Moorcroft PR, Hurtt GC, Pacala SW. A method for scaling vegetation dynamics: the ecosystem demography model (ED). Ecol Monogr. 2001;71:557–85.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Schimel D, Schneider FD. Flux towers in the sky: global ecology from space. New Phytol. 2019;224:570–84.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dubayah R, Blair JB, Goetz S, Fatoyinbo L, Hansen M, Healey S, et al. The global ecosystem dynamics investigation: high-resolution laser ranging of the earth’s forests and topography. Sci Remote Sens. 2020;1:100002.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wang Y, Sperry JS, Anderegg WRL, Venturas MD, Trugman AT. A theoretical and empirical assessment of stomatal optimization modeling. New Phytol. 2020;227:311–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Sperry JS, Venturas MD, Todd HN, Trugman AT, Anderegg WRL, Wang Y, et al. The impact of rising CO2 and acclimation on the response of US forests to global warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:25734–44.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Detto M, Xu X (2020) Optimal leaf life strategies determine Vc,max dynamic during ontogeny. New Phytol nph.16712.

  74. Wu J, Albert LP, Lopes AP, et al. Leaf development and demography explain photosynthetic seasonality in Amazon evergreen forests. Science. 2016;(80):351, 972–976.

  75. Medvigy D, Jeong SJ, Clark KL, Skowronski NS, Schäfer KVR. Effects of seasonal variation of photosynthetic capacity on the carbon fluxes of a temperate deciduous forest. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2013;118:1703–14.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Chen X, Maignan F, Viovy N, Bastos A, Goll D, Wu J, et al. Novel representation of leaf phenology improves simulation of Amazonian evergreen forest photosynthesis in a land surface model. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001565.

  77. De Weirdt M, Verbeeck H, Maignan F, Peylin P, Poulter B, Bonal D, et al. Seasonal leaf dynamics for tropical evergreen forests in a process based global ecosystem model. Geosci Model Dev Discuss. 2012;5:639–81.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kim Y, Knox RG, Longo M, Medvigy D, Hutyra LR, Pyle EH, et al. Seasonal carbon dynamics and water fluxes in an Amazon rainforest. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1322–34.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Friend AD, Eckes-Shephard AH, Fonti P, Rademacher TT, Rathgeber CBK, Richardson AD, et al. On the need to consider wood formation processes in global vegetation models and a suggested approach. Ann For Sci. 2019;76:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Fatichi S, Leuzinger S, Körner C (2013) Moving beyond photosynthesis: from carbon source to sink-driven vegetation modeling. New Phytol n/a-n/a.

  81. Wolf A, Ciais P, Bellassen V, Delbart N, Field CB, Berry JA. Forest biomass allometry in global land surface models. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2011;25. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gb003917.

  82. Trugman AT, Detto M, Bartlett MK, Medvigy D, Anderegg WRL, Schwalm C, et al. Tree carbon allocation explains forest drought-kill and recovery patterns. Ecol Lett. 2018;21:1552–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Trugman AT, Medvigy D, Mankin JS, Anderegg WRL. Soil moisture stress as a major driver of carbon cycle uncertainty. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45:6495–503.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Fatichi S, Pappas C, Ivanov VY. Modeling plant-water interactions: an ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water. 2016;3:327–68.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Christoffersen BO, Gloor M, Fauset S, et al (2016) Linking hydraulic traits to tropical forest function in a size-structured and trait-driven model (TFS v.1-hydro). Geosci Model Dev Discuss 0:1–60.

  86. De Kauwe MG, Medlyn BE, Ukkola AM, et al. Identifying areas at risk of drought-induced tree mortality across South-Eastern Australia. Glob Chang Biol gcb. 2020:15215.

  87. Kennedy D, Swenson S, Oleson KW, Lawrence DM, Fisher R, Lola da Costa AC, et al. Implementing plant hydraulics in the community land model, version 5. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2019;11:485–513.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Gleason SM, Westoby M, Jansen S, Choat B, Hacke UG, Pratt RB, et al. Weak tradeoff between xylem safety and xylem-specific hydraulic efficiency across the world’s woody plant species. New Phytol. 2016;209:123–36.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Trugman AT, Anderegg LDL, Shaw JD, Anderegg WRL. Trait velocities reveal that mortality has driven widespread coordinated shifts in forest hydraulic trait composition. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117:8532–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Choat B, Jansen S, Brodribb TJ, Cochard H, Delzon S, Bhaskar R, et al. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature. 2012;491:752–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Delpierre N, Berveiller D, Granda E, Dufrêne E. Wood phenology, not carbon input, controls the interannual variability of wood growth in a temperate oak forest. New Phytol. 2016;210:459–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Wagner F, Rossi V, Stahl C, Bonal D, Hérault B. Asynchronism in leaf and wood production in tropical forests: a study combining satellite and ground-based measurements. Biogeosciences. 2013;10:7307–21.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Fatichi S, Pappas C, Zscheischler J, Leuzinger S. Modelling carbon sources and sinks in terrestrial vegetation. New Phytol. 2018;221:652–68.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Dietze MC, Sala A, Carbone MS, Czimczik CI, Mantooth JA, Richardson AD, et al. Nonstructural carbon in woody plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2014;65:667–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Malhi Y, Doughty C, Galbraith D. The allocation of ecosystem net primary productivity in tropical forests. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011;366:3225–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Robertson AL, Malhi Y, Farfan-Amezquita F, Aragão LEOC, Silva Espejo JE, Robertson MA. Stem respiration in tropical forests along an elevation gradient in the Amazon and Andes. Glob Chang Biol. 2010;16:3193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Treseder KK, Balser TC, Bradford MA, Brodie EL, Dubinsky EA, Eviner VT, et al. Integrating microbial ecology into ecosystem models: challenges and priorities. Biogeochemistry. 2012;109:7–18.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Medvigy D, Wang G, Zhu Q, Riley WJ, Trierweiler AM, Waring BG, et al. Observed variation in soil properties can drive large variation in modelled forest functioning and composition during tropical forest secondary succession. New Phytol. 2019;223:1820–33.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Levy-Varon JH, Batterman SA, Medvigy D, Xu X, Hall JS, van Breugel M, et al. Tropical carbon sink accelerated by symbiotic dinitrogen fixation. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5637.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. • Sulman BN, Shevliakova E, Brzostek ER, Kivlin SN, Malyshev S, Menge DNL, et al. Diverse mycorrhizal associations enhance terrestrial C storage in a global model. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2019;33:501–23 A comprehensive implementation of diverse mycorrhizal associations including priming, arbuscular mycorrhizae, ecto-mycorrhizae, and nitrogen fixation.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Schenk HJ, Jackson RB. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. J Ecol. 2002;90:480–94.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Smith-Martin CM, Xu X, Medvigy D, Schnitzer SA, Powers JS. Allometric scaling laws linking biomass and rooting depth vary across ontogeny and functional groups in tropical dry forest lianas and trees. New Phytol. 2020;226:714–26.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED. A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia. 1996;108:389–411.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Laio F, D’Odorico P, Ridolfi L. An analytical model to relate the vertical root distribution to climate and soil properties. Geophys Res Lett. 2006;33:L18401.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Fan Y, Miguez-Macho G, Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB, Otero-Casal C. Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:10572–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature. 2004;428:821–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Swenson NG, Zanne AE. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:351–66.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Reich PB. The world-wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. J Ecol. 2014;102:275–301.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Anderegg LDL, Berner LT, Badgley G, Sethi ML, Law BE, HilleRisLambers J. Within-species patterns challenge our understanding of the leaf economics spectrum. Ecol Lett. 2018;21:734–44.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Baraloto C, Paine CET, Poorter L, Beauchene J, Bonal D, Domenach AM, et al. Decoupled leaf and stem economics in rain forest trees. Ecol Lett. 2010;13:1338–47.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Kattge J, Díaz S, Lavorel S, et al. TRY - a global database of plant traits. Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17:2905–35.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Reich PB, Rich RL, Lu X, Wang Y-P, Oleksyn J. Biogeographic variation in evergreen conifer needle longevity and impacts on boreal forest carbon cycle projections. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:13703–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Xu X, Medvigy D, Joseph Wright S, Kitajima K, Wu J, Albert LP, et al. Variations of leaf longevity in tropical moist forests predicted by a trait-driven carbon optimality model. Ecol Lett. 2017;20:1097–106.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Reich PB, Sendall KM, Stefanski A, Wei X, Rich RL, Montgomery RA. Boreal and temperate trees show strong acclimation of respiration to warming. Nature. 2016;531:633–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17142.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Scheiter S, Langan L, Higgins SI. Next-generation dynamic global vegetation models: learning from community ecology. New Phytol. 2013;198:957–69.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Lombardozzi DL, Bonan GB, Smith NG, Dukes JS, Fisher RA. Temperature acclimation of photosynthesis and respiration: a key uncertainty in the carbon cycle-climate feedback. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42:8624–31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Smith NG, Malyshev SL, Shevliakova E, Kattge J, Dukes JS. Foliar temperature acclimation reduces simulated carbon sensitivity to climate. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:407–11.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Tjoelker MG, Oleksyn J, Reich PB. Modelling respiration of vegetation: evidence for a general temperature-dependent Q10. Glob Chang Biol. 2001;7:223–30.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Slot M, Rey-Sánchez C, Gerber S, Lichstein JW, Winter K, Kitajima K. Thermal acclimation of leaf respiration of tropical trees and lianas: response to experimental canopy warming, and consequences for tropical forest carbon balance. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20:2915–26.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Wang H, Atkin OK, Keenan TF, Smith NG, Wright IJ, Bloomfield KJ, et al. Acclimation of leaf respiration consistent with optimal photosynthetic capacity. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:2573–83.

    Google Scholar 

  121. • Wang H, Prentice IC, Keenan TF, Davis TW, Wright IJ, Cornwell WK, et al. Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants /704/47 /704/158/851 letter. Nat Plants. 2017;3:734–41 Theoretical basis of optimality-based photosynthesis model that accounts for acclimation and adaptation.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Franklin O, Harrison SP, Dewar R, Farrior CE, Brännström Å, Dieckmann U, et al. Organizing principles for vegetation dynamics. Nat Plants. 2020;6:444–53.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Stocker BD, Wang H, Smith NG, Harrison SP, Keenan TF, Sandoval D, et al. P-model v1.0: an optimality-based light use efficiency model for simulating ecosystem gross primary production. Geosci Model Dev. 2020;13:1545–81.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Medlyn BE, Zaehle S, De Kauwe MG, et al. Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;5:528–34.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Wieder WR, Lawrence DM, Fisher RA, Bonan GB, Cheng SJ, Goodale CL, et al. Beyond static benchmarking: using experimental manipulations to evaluate land model assumptions. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2019;33:1289–309.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Zhang K, de Almeida Castanho AD, Galbraith DR, Moghim S, Levine NM, Bras RL, et al. The fate of Amazonian ecosystems over the coming century arising from changes in climate, atmospheric CO2, and land use. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21:2569–87.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Higgins SI, Scheiter S. Atmospheric CO 2 forces abrupt vegetation shifts locally, but not globally. Nature. 2012;488:209–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Purves DW, Lichstein JW, Strigul N, Pacala SW. Predicting and understanding forest dynamics using a simple tractable model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:17018–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Jiang C, Ryu Y. Multi-scale evaluation of global gross primary productivity and evapotranspiration products derived from Breathing Earth System Simulator (BESS). Remote Sens Environ. 2016;186:528–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

X.X. acknowledges funding from Cornell CALS. A.T.T acknowledges funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Programme Grant No. 2018-67012-31496, the University of California Laboratory Fees Research Program Award No. LFR-20-652467, and the NSF Grant 2003205. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for providing insightful suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA

    Xiangtao Xu

  2. Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Anna T. Trugman

Authors
  1. Xiangtao Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna T. Trugman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangtao Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Advances and Future Directions in Earth System Modelling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, X., Trugman, A.T. Trait-Based Modeling of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Advances and Challenges Under Global Change. Curr Clim Change Rep 7, 1–13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-020-00168-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-020-00168-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation