![]() |
||||||||||||||
Australia: The Land Where Time Began |
||||||||||||||
Anomalous Arctic Warming Linked to Reduced North American Terrestrial
Primary Productivity
Terrestrial productivity has been enhanced by warming temperatures in
the Northern Hemisphere. Since 1990 these events have been linked to
anomalous warming in the Arctic, and Kim et
al. suggest they may affect
Terrestrial processes. In this paper Kim et
al. analyse multiple
observation data sets and numerical model simulations to evaluate links
between temperatures in the Arctic and primary productivity. The study
found that in the Arctic positive temperature anomalies in the spring
have resulted in negative anomalies in the gross primary productivity
across most of North America over the last 3 decades, which is a net
decline of primary productivity of 0.31 PgC/year (petagrams of carbon)
across the continent. There are 2 factors that mainly explain this
decline: conditions of severe cold in northern North America and lower
precipitation in the South Central United States. Also, it is revealed
by crop-yield data for the US that yields declined by an average of
approximately 1-4 %, and individual states experienced declines of up to
20 %, in years of anomalous warming in the Arctic. It was concluded by
Kim et al. that strengthening
of the warming anomalies in the Arctic over past decades has reduced
productivity over North America remotely.
Climate changes over the last few decades that are a result of
anthropogenic forcings and processes of natural feedback have affected
the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems around the Earth.
(Myneni et al., 1997;
Zhu et al., 2016). An increase in terrestrial gross primary productivity
(GPP), such as the expansion of shrub cover, enhanced
photosynthesis by vegetation and the lengthening of the growing season,
especially at high latitudes, is one of the main consequences of
terrestrial ecosystem changes (Bhatt et al.,. 2010; Hinzman et al.,
2005). These positive changes in vegetation productivity at high
latitudes are related closely to the recent warming across the high
latitude regions (Piao et al., 2008). The Arctic has recently shown a
remarkably rapid temperature trend compared with other regions; as
indicated by the observed records; that is known as the Arctic
Amplification (Kug et al., 2016; Francis & Vavrus, 2012; Cohen et al.,
2014; Screen & Simonds, 2016; Wallace et
al., 2014). It has recently
been reported, however, that anomalous warming of the Arctic can result
in severe cold events at mid-latitudes (Kug et al., 2016; Kim et al.,
2014). It is possible that mid-latitude terrestrial ecosystems are
affected in the opposite direction via teleconnections that are induced
by anomalous warming in the Arctic, even though warming of the Arctic
regions has resulted in positive changes in high latitude productivity
of vegetation. Understanding of the remote impacts of anomalous Arctic
warming on terrestrial GPP at mid-latitudes is, however, not sufficient.
Atmospheric teleconnections linked to warming of the Arctic
It has recently been reported that regional temperatures anomalies in
the Arctic are critical to an explanation of climate variations in
downstream regions; such as the close relationship between the cold
winters over North America via the development of downstream
teleconnection and the Arctic anomalies over the East Siberian-Chukchi
Sea (Kug et al., 2015; Wallace et al., 2014). In this paper Kim et
al. used the Arctic
temperature (ART) index, which was introduced in a previous study (Kug
et al., 2015), to represent
the regional Arctic temperature anomalies that averaged temperature
anomalies over the East Siberian-Chukchi Sea (160oE -160oW,
65o-80oN). The March ART index particularly shows
the most significant relation with simultaneous and lagged temperature
anomalies over North America; therefore this index is used to evaluate
remote impacts on mid-latitude atmospheric conditions and terrestrial
GPP over North America by regional Arctic temperature anomalies.
The first step was Examination of the atmospheric teleconnection pattern
that is related to temperature anomalies in the Arctic, which is
represented by the regressed circulation pattern with respect to the ART
index for the period 1979-2015. Positive sea level pressure anomalies
over Alaska might be a direct response to positive temperature anomalies
in the Arctic. This anticyclonic flow that is induced by local forcing
expands to the east due to strong low-level cloud cold advection. A
distinctive anticyclone in the upper level that is located over Alaska
shows an equivalent barotropic structure. Also, there are cyclonic and
anticyclonic anomalies that are located in the downstream regions; this
can be explained by the propagation of Rossby waves (Honda, Inoue &
Yamane, 2009). As a result of the atmospheric teleconnection that is
induced by anomalous Arctic warming, low-level anticyclone and upper
level cyclone anomalies, by which favourable conditions for severe cold
weather are provided, are deployed over North America.
Considerable surface anomalies are observed in the northern part of
North America, while in in Alaska and East Siberia positive temperature
anomalies are observed, which is consistent with the large-scale
atmosphere pattern. An anomalous southwesterly wind is also observed
along the east coast of the United States related to the anomalous
anticyclone over the subtropical Atlantic, in contrast to the northerly
wind in northern North America. An eastwards shift of the Great Plains
low-level jet is indicated by the anomalous southwesterlies, which can
lead to a dipole precipitation pattern by alteration of the transport of
moisture (Higgins, Mo & Yao, 1998).
Terrestrial productivity anomalies linked to warming in the Arctic
Significant anomalies of temperature and precipitation have been
observed over North America that are associated with variation in Arctic
temperature. It is expected that anomalous temperature and precipitation
changes over North America on a continental scale could affect
terrestrial ecosystems. The relations of multiple data sets that are
used as a proxy for terrestrial GPP with the ART index are analysed to
examine the impact Arctic warming is having on terrestrial GPP over
North America. It has been found that negative vegetation activity and
terrestrial GPP are captured across North America that are related to
anomalous Arctic warming. Significant changes in terrestrial GPP have
been exhibited across an extensive area of North America, from Canada,
in the broad coniferous forests, to Mexico, in the subtropical steppe.
It is clear that in terms of spatial pattern among various data sets,
that there is consistent vegetation activity, such as satellite remote
sensing of the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) for the
period 1982-2013, and the GPP that is the flux tower that is data-driven
that is based on a model tree ensemble (MTE) for the period 1982-2011.
Consistent results are shown for the terrestrial ecosystem models; i.e.,
the simulated multi-model ensemble (MME) GPP correlates negatively to
the ART index. Kim et al.
found that the terrestrial productivity anomalies that were induced by
anomalous Arctic warming are not sensitive to the data period, though
the trends of NDVI and GPP can be dependent on the data period. Also,
consistent results were shown for the Earth system models, which took
part in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5).
Consistent results were shown by the observed GPP variations from
individual flux towers with large scale data in terms of negative GPP
anomalies in the case of anomalous Arctic warming, in spite of limited
observed sample size. It is indicated by both the data-driven and the
process-driven GPP that a change of about -0.31PgC/year over North
America (125o-85oW, 30o-60oN),
even though interannual variability tends to be underestimated (Jung et
al., 2011).
Kim et al. suggest that a major driver for the negative GPP would be the
cold surface over North America that was associated with anomalous
Arctic warming. Terrestrial GPP anomalies in the norther part of North
America are related closely to anomalous Arctic warming temperature
anomalies because temperate and boreal regions are composed of
ecosystems that are limited by temperature. This is consistent with a
previous study, which demonstrated that the weakening positive trends in
vegetation spring and summer greenness, is related to temperature
variations during spring in that region (Wang et al., 2011). In detail,
the maximum NDI and GPP appear in the Great Lakes Basin in the northwest
of the United States, while the maximum temperature anomaly is located
in the Manitoba and Saskatchewan provinces of Canada to the northwest of
the Great Lakes Basin. Kim et al.
suggest that this may be attributed to the sensitivity difference of the
GPP to the cold damage, the cold tolerance, of the vegetation, depending
on the plant functional types (Kim et al., 2014). E.g., there is a high
fraction of forest that is comprised of needleleaf, evergreen forest,
which has cold tolerance that is relatively stronger than other classes
of land cover. However, deciduous broadleaf forest and mixed forest, in
which the sensitivity to cold damage is higher than in evergreen
needleleaf forest are distributed mainly in the Great Lakes Basin (Kim
et al., 2014); thereby, NDVI and GPP anomalies that are related to
anomalous Arctic warming have shown a southeastwards shift pattern
compared to temperature anomalies.
Terrestrial variation in the South Central United States might be
related to precipitation anomalies with respect to anomalous Arctic
warming, as well as the temperature effect. The reduction of the GPP in
the southern part of North America is mainly accompanied by a decrease
in precipitation in that region, as a result of water-limited ecosystems
in that region (Nemani et al., 2013). The increased precipitation on the
east coast of the United States does not contribute to increased
terrestrial GPP, as the ecosystems in that region are not water limited,
possibly as a result of enough climatological precipitation, which
contrasts to the decreased precipitation in the South Central United
States.
Also, monthly GPP anomalies to March Arctic temperature anomalies show
that the impacts on the terrestrial GPP are at maximum in May and even
maintained until early summer, in both flux tower data-driven and
simulated results. Ecologically, biological stresses may result from
environmental disturbances, such as plant cellular dehydration, low
stomatal conductance, canopy development suppression, and leaf area,
especially for early spring, as leaves that are newly emerged in spring
are sensitive to cold (Hufkens et al., 2012) and drought (Noormets et
al., 2008) stresses as a result of structural rigour, which is necessary
to avoid cellular damage (Menzel & Fabian, 1999). This is consistent
with previous studies in which it was argued that changes in the
productivity of spring vegetation tend to affect the productivity in
terrestrial systems in the succeeding months (Jeong et al.,. 2012; Kim
et al., 2014). Also, significant anomalies are shown to the local
temperature and precipitation in spring over some parts of North
America, which suggests there is a role for atmospheric conditions in
spring in interannual variability of terrestrial productivity in North
America. Therefore, abiotic stresses, that include cold and drought
stresses, during spring that result from anomalous Arctic warming
simultaneously suppress productivity and even contribute to reduced
annual productivity, possibly by lasting effects on the function of
ecosystems.
Impacts on the US crop yield
It is revealed by the US-national-level crop yield data that annual
yields of corn, soybeans and wheat declined by about 1.74, 3.96 and 3.62
%, respectively, in years of Arctic warming compared to years of Arctic
cooling, which is consistent with cumulative annual terrestrial GPP. It
is suggested by state-level differences of crop yield between Arctic
warming and Arctic cooling cases that all 3 major crops mainly exhibit
changes that are negative
in response to anomalous Arctic warming, albeit with some differences in
crop fraction, sensitivity of crop to climatic conditions, and scheme of
management between states (Butler & Huybers, 2013). The regions where a
significant degree of crop yield reduction is displayed are consistent
with the overall negative terrestrial productivity anomalies in North
America which were obtained by remote sensing of NDVI, as well as by
data-driven and process-driven GPP, which also includes areas of
irrigated cropland in the southern part of the US. Crop yields are
concurrently apparent in the Great Plains for all 3 crops, such as North
Dakota (soybeans -0.24 and wheat -0.44 t/ha/yr.), South Dakota, Nebraska
and Kansas (soybean -0.39t/ha/yr.). Corn
in the southern US displays the largest decrease in crop yield,
especially in Texas (-1.11 t/ha/yr; which is about 20 % of the
productivity in a normal year in this region). Kim et
al. suggest the crop yield
reductions in the southern US could be related to precipitation
decreases), as is shown in the response of the atmosphere to anomalous
arctic warming. This may be a result of crop productivity in dry areas
of the southern US being crucially dependent on water resources. The
decreasing crop yield in the northern Great Plains might be related to
decreased temperature in spring, which is in contrast to the situation
in the southern Great Plains. A few states in the northwestern US
exhibit positive relations, especially for the yield of wheat, though
crop yield changes related to anomalous Arctic warming show negative
relations in most of the regions. This pattern can be explained by
increases in precipitation in the northwestern US, which Kim et
al. suggest may have a
positive impact on the productivity of wheat (Tack, Barkley & Nalley,
2015).
Overall, this study has demonstrated for the first time an apparent link
between temperature variations in the Arctic and mid-latitude
agricultural productivity. As the understanding of large-scale
circulation patterns can be useful for the improvement of the
predictability of terrestrial productivity and crop yields (Cane et al.,
1994; Kim et al., 2016; Hallett et al., 2004; Ciais et al., 2005; Bastos
et al., 2016), the results of this study suggest the Arctic information
could be used in the forecasting of agricultural productivity and a
reduction of the uncertainty. In particular, as the variation of the
interannual Arctic temperature has been distinctly stronger in recent
decades as the Arctic sea ice (Kug et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2014)
declines rapidly, it is suggested this variation in Arctic temperature
may negatively impact human life in the form of adverse weather
conditions as well as agricultural productivity over North America.
Moreover, the simulated MME net ecosystem exchange anomaly that is
associated with anomalous Arctic warming is about -0.1 PgC/yr, which is
about 20 % of the interannual standard deviation range in the carbon
sink of North America (King et al., 2015).
According to Kim et al. the
current climate models tend to simulate the negative terrestrial GPP
anomalies that are associated with the anomalous Arctic warming over
North America reasonably well, though the detailed spatial pattern
differs from the patterns that have been observed. Moreover, these
negative GPP anomalies are also seen in future climate simulations,
which suggest the relationship is robust. Of interest, the
Arctic-related GPP anomalies are even stronger under future climatic
conditions, especially in northwest North America. Kim et
al suggest this is related to
sensitivity of GPP anomalies to local temperature becomes stronger under
greenhouse warming, and it is consistent with previous studies that have
argued enhanced phenological frost damage in a warming climate (Gu et
al., 2008; Rigby & Porporato; Augspurger, 2009; Augspurger, 2013). I.e.,
Arctic-induced cold stress in a warmer climate will damage more severely
the ecosystem in that region. This result has delivered important
implications for climate adaptation, though to obtain a general
conclusion further investigation is required.
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Author: M.H.Monroe Email: admin@austhrutime.com Sources & Further reading |