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.

Evaluating the simulated mean soil carbon transit times by Earth system models using observations

Evaluation of CMIP5 Earth System Models for the Spatial Patterns of Biomass and Soil Carbon Turnover Times and Their Linkage with Climate

Evaluation of soil carbon simulation in CMIP6 Earth System Models

Toward More Realistic Projections of Soil Carbon Dynamics by Earth System Models

Underestimated ecosystem carbon turnover time and sequestration under the steady state assumption: A perspective from long-term data assimilation

Methodological Uncertainty in Estimating Carbon Turnover Times of Soil Fractions

Global Patterns and Controls of Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics As Simulated by Multiple Terrestrial Biosphere Models: Current Status and Future Directions.

Carbon cycle confidence and uncertainty: Exploring variation among soil biogeochemical models

Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century

Global Evaluation of Vegetation Carbon Residence Times as Simulated by ISI IMP2 Global Vegetation Models (GVMs) Using a Data Product based on Satellite and Eddy Covariance Flux …

The age distribution of global soil carbon inferred from radiocarbon measurements

A spatial emergent constraint on the sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to global warming

Uncertain predictions of soil carbon change during the 21st century

Exploring the likely relationship between soil carbon change and environmental controls using nonrevisited temporal data sets: Mapping soil carbon dynamics across China

Microbial Activity and Root Carbon Inputs Are More Important Than Soil Carbon Diffusion in Simulating Soil Carbon Profiles

Global‐Scale Convergence Obscures Inconsistencies in Soil Carbon Change Predicted by Earth System Models

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

Reducing Uncertainties of Future Global Soil Carbon Responses to Climate and Land Use Change with Emergent Constraints

Assessing and predicting soil carbon density in China using CMIP5 earth system models

Sources of variation in simulated ecosystem carbon storage capacity from the 5th Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)

Observation‐based global soil heterotrophic respiration indicates underestimated turnover and sequestration of soil carbon by terrestrial ecosystem models