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.

Evaluation of soil carbon simulation in CMIP6 Earth System Models

Representation of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle in CMIP6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of soil carbon dynamics after forest cover change in CMIP6 land models using chronosequences

Uncertain predictions of soil carbon change during the 21st century

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

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

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 …

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

Substantial uncertainties in global soil organic carbon simulated by multiple terrestrial carbon cycle models

Intercomparison of Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes and Carbon Use Efficiency Simulated by CMIP5 Earth System Models

Spatial Inhomogeneity of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Its Uncertainty in CMIP6 Earth System Models

Quantifying Uncertainties in Soil Carbon Responses to Changes in Global Mean Temperature and Precipitation

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

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