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.

Resolving Uncertainty in the Response of Australia's Terrestrial Carbon Cycle to Projected Climate Change

Modelling changes in vegetation productivity and carbon balance under future climate scenarios in southeastern Australia

Carbon Residence Time Dominates Uncertainty In Terrestrial Vegetation Responses To Future Climate And Atmospheric Co2

How Uncertainties in Future Climate Change Predictions Translate into Future Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes

Uncertainty in the response of terrestrial carbon sink to environmental drivers undermines carbon-climate feedback predictions.

Decomposing Uncertainties in the Future Terrestrial Carbon Budget Associated with Emission Scenarios, Climate Projections, and Ecosystem Simulations Using the ISI-MIP Results

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

Importance of Vegetation Dynamics for Future Terrestrial Carbon Cycling

A Large Committed Long‐Term Sink of Carbon Due to Vegetation Dynamics

Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle

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

Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs)

Carbon cycle responses of semi-arid ecosystems to positive asymmetry in rainfall

Uncertainty analysis of vegetation distribution in the northern high latitudes during the 21st century with a dynamic vegetation model

Saturation of Global Terrestrial Carbon Sink under a High Warming Scenario

Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake

Future climate impacts on forest growth and implications for carbon sequestration through reforestation in southeast Australia

Interplay of Greening and ENSO on Biosphere–atmosphere Processes in Australia

Large Uncertainty in Carbon Uptake Potential of Land-Based Climate-Change Mitigation Efforts

Assessing the response of soil carbon in Australia to changing inputs and climate using a consistent modelling framework

Land Processes Can Substantially Impact the Mean Climate State