Engineering topics

Du, Zhenggang

Publications and source records attributed to Du, Zhenggang.

3 records

DOE OSTI2021

Long-term measurements in a mixed-grass prairie reveal a change in soil organic carbon recalcitrance and its environmental sensitivity under warming

Soil respiration, the major pathway for ecosystem carbon (C) loss, has the potential to enter a positive feedback loop with the atmospheric CO2 due to climate warming. For reliable projections of climate-carbon feedbacks, accurate quantification of soil respiration and identification of mechanisms that control its variability are essential. Process-based models simulate soil respiration as functions of belowground C input, organic matter quality, and sensitivity to environmental conditions. However, evaluation and calibration of process-based models against the long-term in situ measurements are rare. Here, we evaluate the performance of the Terrestrial ECOsystem (TECO) model in simulating total and heterotrophic soil respiration measured during a 16-year warming experiment in a mixed-grass prairie; calibrate model parameters against these and other measurements collected during the experiment; and explore whether the mechanisms of C dynamics have changed over the years. Calibrating model parameters against observations of individual years substantially improved model performance in comparison to pre-calibration simulations, explaining 79–86% of variability in observed soil respiration. Interannual variation of the calibrated model parameters indicated increasing recalcitrance of soil C and changing environmental sensitivity of microbes. Overall, we found that (1) soil organic C became more recalcitrant in intact soil compared to root-free soil; (2) warming offset the effects of increasing C recalcitrance in intact soil and changed microbial sensitivity to moisture conditions. Furthermore, these findings indicate that soil respiration may decrease in the future due to C quality, but this decrease may be offset by warming-induced changes in C cycling mechanisms and their responses to moisture conditions.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Full Implementation of Matrix Approach to Biogeochemistry Module of CLM5

Abstract Earth system models (ESMs) have been rapidly developed in recent decades to advance our understanding of climate change‐carbon cycle feedback. However, those models are massive in coding, require expensive computational resources, and have difficulty in diagnosing their performance. It is highly desirable to develop ESMs with modularity and effective diagnostics. Toward these goals, we implemented a matrix approach to the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) to represent carbon and nitrogen cycles. Specifically, we reorganized 18 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 18 vegetation pools in the original CLM5 into two matrix equations. Similarly, 140 balance equations each for carbon and nitrogen cycles among the 140 soil pools were reorganized into two additional matrix equations. The vegetation carbon and nitrogen matrix equations are connected to soil matrix equations via litterfall. The matrix equations fully reproduce simulations of carbon and nitrogen dynamics by the original model. The computational cost for forwarding simulation of the CLM5 matrix model was 26% more expensive than the original model, largely due to calculation of additional diagnostic variables, but the spin‐up computational cost was significantly saved. We showed a case study on modeled soil carbon storage under two forcing data sets to illustrate the diagnostic capability that the matrix approach uniquely offers to understand simulation results of global carbon and nitrogen dynamics. The successful implementation of the matrix approach to CLM5, one of the most complex land models, demonstrates that most, if not all, the biogeochemical models can be reorganized into the matrix form to gain high modularity, effective diagnostics, and accelerated spin‐up.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2018

Carbon-Nitrogen Coupling Under Three Schemes of Model Representation: A Traceability Analysis

The interaction between terrestrial carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycles has been incorporated into more and more land surface models. However, the scheme of C-N coupling differs greatly among models, and how these diverse representations of C-N interactions will affect C-cycle modeling remains unclear. In this study, we explored how the simulated ecosystem C storage capacity in the terrestrial ecosystem (TECO) model varied with three different commonly used schemes of C-N coupling. The three schemes (SM1, SM2, and SM3) have been used in three different coupled C-N models (i.e., TECO-CN, CLM 4.5, and O-CN, respectively). They differ mainly in the stoichiometry of C and N in vegetation and soils, plant N uptake strategies, down regulation of photosynthesis, and the pathways of N import. We incorporated the three C-N coupling schemes into the C-only version of the TECO model and evaluated their impacts on the C cycle with a traceability framework. Our results showed that all three of the C-N schemes caused significant reductions in steady-state C storage capacity compared with the C-only version with magnitudes of −23%, −30%, and −54% for SM1, SM2, and SM3, respectively. This reduced C storage capacity was mainly derived from the combined effects of decreases in net primary productivity (NPP; −29%, −15%, and −45%) and changes in mean C residence time (MRT; 9%, −17%, and −17%) for SM1, SM2, and SM3, respectively. The differences in NPP are mainly attributed to the different assumptions on plant N uptake, plant tissue C : N ratio, down regulation of photosynthesis, and biological N fixation. In comparison, the alternative representations of the plant vs. microbe competition strategy and the plant N uptake, combined with the flexible C : N ratio in vegetation and soils, led to a notable spread in MRT. These results highlight the fact that the diverse assumptions on N processes represented by different C-N coupled models could cause additional uncertainty for land surface models. Understanding their difference can help us improve the capability of models to predict future biogeochemical cycles of terrestrial ecosystems.

Du, Zhenggang↗