Abstract:The spatial and temporal variations in terrestrial carbon storage play a pivotal role in regulating future climate change. However, Earth system models (ESMs), which have coupled the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere, show great uncertainty in simulating the global land carbon storage. Here, based on multiple global datasets and a traceability analysis, we diagnosed the uncertainty source of terrestrial carbon storage in 22 ESMs that participated in phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). The modeled global terrestrial carbon storage has converged among ESMs from CMIP5 (1936.9 ± 739.3 PgC) to CMIP6 (1774.4 ± 439.0 PgC) but is persistently lower than the observation-based estimates (2285 ± 669 PgC). By further decomposing terrestrial carbon storage into net primary production (NPP) and ecosystem carbon residence time ( τ E ), we found that the decreased intermodel spread in land carbon storage primarily resulted from more accurate simulations on NPP among ESMs from CMIP5 to CMIP6. The persistent underestimation of land carbon storage was caused by the biased τ E . In CMIP5 and CMIP6, the modeled τ E was far shorter than the observation-based estimates. The potential reasons for the biased τ E could be the lack of or incomplete representation of nutrient limitation, vertical soil biogeochemistry, and the permafrost carbon cycle. Moreover, the modeled τ E became the key driver for the intermodel spread in global land carbon storage in CMIP6. Overall, our study indicates that CMIP6 models have greatly improved the terrestrial carbon cycle, with a decreased model spread in global terrestrial carbon storage and less uncertain productivity. However, more efforts are needed to understand and reduce the persistent data–model disagreement on carbon storage and residence time in the terrestrial biosphere. The spatial and temporal variations in terrestrial carbon storage play a pivotal role in regulating future climate change. However, Earth system models (ESMs), which have coupled the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere, show great uncertainty in simulating the global land carbon storage. Here, based on multiple global datasets and a traceability analysis, we diagnosed the uncertainty source of terrestrial carbon storage in 22 ESMs that participated in phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). The modeled global terrestrial carbon storage has converged among ESMs from CMIP5 (1936.9 ± 739.3 PgC) to CMIP6 (1774.4 ± 439.0 PgC) but is persistently lower than the observation-based estimates (2285 ± 669 PgC). By further decomposing terrestrial carbon storage into net primary production (NPP) and ecosystem carbon residence time ( τ E ), we found that the decreased intermodel spread in land carbon storage primarily resulted from more accurate simulations on NPP among ESMs from CMIP5 to CMIP6. The persistent underestimation of land carbon storage was caused by the biased τ E . In CMIP5 and CMIP6, the modeled τ E was far shorter than the observation-based estimates. The potential reasons for the biased τ E could be the lack of or incomplete representation of nutrient limitation, vertical soil biogeochemistry, and the permafrost carbon cycle. Moreover, the modeled τ E became the key driver for the intermodel spread in global land carbon storage in CMIP6. Overall, our study indicates that CMIP6 models have greatly improved the terrestrial carbon cycle, with a decreased model spread in global terrestrial carbon storage and less uncertain productivity. However, more efforts are needed to understand and reduce the persistent data–model disagreement on carbon storage and residence time in the terrestrial biosphere.

Representation of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle in CMIP6

Evaluation of soil carbon simulation in CMIP6 Earth System Models

The Impact of Climate Forcing Biases and the Nitrogen Cycle on Land Carbon Balance Projections

Intercomparison of global terrestrial carbon fluxes estimated by MODIS and Earth system models

Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models

Benchmarking Carbon Fluxes of the Isimip2a Biome Models

Ecosystem C and N cycle interactions – diverse model representations and divergent model predictions versus collective empirical constraints

CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2)

Global evaluation of the nutrient enabled version of land surface model ORCHIDEE-CNP (v1.2)

Carbon–nitrogen Interactions in Idealized Simulations with JSBACH (version 3.10)

Evolution of Uncertainty in Terrestrial Carbon Storage in Earth System Models from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Carbon-nitrogen interactions in idealized simulations with JSBACH (version 3.10)

Improved process representation of leaf phenology significantly shifts climate sensitivity of ecosystem carbon balance

Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon-nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate Free-Air CO2 Enrichment studies

Simulating Global Terrestrial Carbon and Nitrogen Biogeochemical Cycles With Implicit and Explicit Representations of Soil Microbial Activity

Evaluating the performance of CMIP6 Earth system models in simulating global vegetation structure and distribution

Representing nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon interactions in the E3SM Land Model: Development and global benchmarking

Feedback of carbon and nitrogen cycles enhances carbon sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere

Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM‐ESM2‐1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present‐Day and Future Climate