Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Reduced North American terrestrial primary productivity linked to anomalous Arctic warming

Nature Geoscience volume 10, pages 572–576 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Warming temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have enhanced terrestrial productivity. Despite the warming trend, North America has experienced more frequent and more intense cold weather events during winters and springs. These events have been linked to anomalous Arctic warming since 1990, and may affect terrestrial processes. Here we analyse multiple observation data sets and numerical model simulations to evaluate links between Arctic temperatures and primary productivity in North America. We find that positive springtime temperature anomalies in the Arctic have led to negative anomalies in gross primary productivity over most of North America during the last three decades, which amount to a net productivity decline of 0.31 PgC yr−1 across the continent. This decline is mainly explained by two factors: severe cold conditions in northern North America and lower precipitation in the South Central United States. In addition, United States crop-yield data reveal that during years experiencing anomalous warming in the Arctic, yields declined by approximately 1 to 4% on average, with individual states experiencing declines of up to 20%. We conclude that the strengthening of Arctic warming anomalies in the past decades has remotely reduced productivity over North America.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Atmospheric teleconnections related to Arctic warming.
Figure 2: Arctic warming impacts on spring terrestrial productivity.
Figure 3: Impacts of Arctic warming on monthly terrestrial productivity.
Figure 4: Impacts of Arctic warming on United States crop yields.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Myneni, R. B., Keeling, C. D., Tucker, C. J., Asrar, G. & Nemani, R. R. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386, 698–702 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhu, Z. et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 791–795 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhatt, U. S. et al. Circumpolar Arctic tundra vegetation change is linked to sea ice decline. Earth Intract. 14, 1–20 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hinzman, L. D. et al. Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Clim. Change 72, 251–298 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Piao, S. et al. Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451, 49–52 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kug, J. S. et al. Two distinct influences of Arctic warming on cold winters over North America and East Asia. Nat. Geosci. 8, 759–762 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Francis, J. A. & Vavrus, S. J. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L06801 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, J. et al. Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather. Nat. Geosci. 7, 627–637 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Screen, J. A. & Simmonds, I. Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 704–709 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wallace, J. M., Held, I. M., Thompson, D. W., Trenberth, K. E. & Walsh, J. E. Global warming and winter weather. Science 343, 729–730 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim, B. M. et al. Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss. Nat. Commun. 5, 4646 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Honda, M., Inoue, J. & Yamane, S. Influence of low Arctic sea-ice minima on anomalously cold Eurasian winters. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08707 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins, R. W., Mo, K. C. & Yao, Y. Interannual variability of the US summer precipitation regime with emphasis on the southwestern monsoon. J. Clim. 11, 2582–2606 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Jong, R., Verbesselt, J., Zeileis, A. & Schaepman, M. E. Shifts in global vegetation activity trends. Remote Sens. 5, 1117–1133 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jung, M. et al. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G00J07 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang, X. H. et al. Spring temperature change and its implication in the change of vegetation growth in North America from 1982 to 2006. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1240–1245 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeong, S. J., Medvigy, D., Shevliakova, E. & Malyshev, S. Uncertainties in terrestrial carbon budgets related to spring phenology. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G01030 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, Y., Kimball, J. S., Didan, K. & Henebry, G. M. Response of vegetation growth and productivity to spring climate indicators in the conterminous United States derived from satellite remote sensing data fusion. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 194, 132–143 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nemani, R. R. et al. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300, 1560–1563 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hufkens, K. et al. Ecological impacts of a widespread frost event following early spring leaf-out. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2365–2377 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Noormets, A. et al. Drought during canopy development has lasting effect on annual carbon balance in a deciduous temperate forest. New Phytol. 179, 818–828 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Menzel, A. & Fabian, P. Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Butler, E. E. & Huybers, P. Adaptation of US maize to temperature variations. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 68–72 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tack, J., Barkley, A. & Nalley, L. L. Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6931–6936 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cane, M., Eshel, G. & Buckland, R. Forecasting Zimbabwean maize yield using eastern equatorial Pacific sea-surface temperature. Nature 370, 204–205 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim, J. S., Kug, J. S., Yoon, J. H. & Jeong, S. J. Increased atmospheric CO2 growth rate during El Niño driven by reduced terrestrial productivity in the CMIP5 ESMs. J. Clim. 29, 8783–8805 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hallett, T. B. et al. Why large-scale climate indices seem to predict ecological processes better than local weather. Nature 430, 71–75 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ciais, P. et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437, 529–533 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bastos, A. et al. European land CO2 sink influenced by NAO and East-Atlantic Pattern coupling. Nat. Commun. 7, 10315 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. King, A. et al. North America’s net terrestrial CO2 exchange with the atmosphere 1990–2009. Biogeosciences 12, 399–414 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gu, L. et al. The 2007 eastern US spring freezes: increased cold damage in a warming world? Bioscience 58, 253–262 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rigby, J. R. & Porporato, A. Spring frost risk in a changing climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L12703 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Augspurger, C. K. Spring 2007 warmth and frost: phenology, damage and refoliation in a temperate deciduous forest. Funct. Ecol. 23, 1031–1039 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Augspurger, C. K. Reconstructing patterns of temperature, phenology, and frost damage over 124 years: spring damage risk is increasing. Ecology 94, 41–50 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cowtan, K. & Way, R. G. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dee, D. P. et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 553–597 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tucker, C. J. et al. An extended AVHRR 8-km NDVI dataset compatible with MODIS and SPOT vegetation NDVI data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 4485–4498 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huntzinger, D. N. et al. The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project—Part 1: overview and experimental design. Geosci. Model. Dev. 6, 2121–2133 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wei, Y. et al. The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project—Part 2: environmental driver data. Geosci. Model. Dev. 6, 5375–5422 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Piao, S. et al. Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO2 trends. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2117–2132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. NASS quick stats, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2008).

  43. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 4) for producing and making available their model output. Funding for the Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP; https://nacp.ornl.gov) activity was provided through NASA ROSES Grant no. NNX10AG01A. Data management support for preparing, documenting and distributing model driver and output data was performed by the Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL; http://nacp.ornl.gov), with funding through NASA ROSES Grant no. NNH10AN681. Finalized MsTMIP data products are archived at the ORNL DAAC (http://daac.ornl.gov). Funding for AmeriFlux data resources was provided by the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The authors thank N. Mueller for his careful comments on the crop data analysis. J.-S.Kug and J.-S.Kim were supported by the Korean Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program under Grant KMIPA2015-2092 and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B3011511). S.-J.J. was supported by the startup of South University of Science and Technology of China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, 37673, South Korea

    Jin-Soo Kim & Jong-Seong Kug

  2. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, South University of Science and Technology of China (SUSTECH), Shenzhen, 518055, China

    Su-Jong Jeong

  3. School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86011, USA

    Deborah N. Huntzinger

  4. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, 94305, USA

    Anna M. Michalak

  5. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, Massachusetts, 02540, USA

    Christopher R. Schwalm

  6. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86011, USA

    Christopher R. Schwalm

  7. Environmental Sciences Division and Climate Change Science Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 37831, USA

    Yaxing Wei

  8. National Snow and Ice Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, 80309, USA

    Kevin Schaefer

Authors
  1. Jin-Soo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jong-Seong Kug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Su-Jong Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah N. Huntzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna M. Michalak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher R. Schwalm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yaxing Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kevin Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.-S.Kim compiled the data, conducted analyses, prepared figures, and wrote the manuscript. J.-S.Kug and S.-J.J. designed the research and wrote the majority of the manuscript content. All of the authors discussed the study results and reviewed the manuscript. D.N.H., A.M.M., C.R.S., Y.W. and K.S. provide the MsTMIP data.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jong-Seong Kug or Su-Jong Jeong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 3404 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, JS., Kug, JS., Jeong, SJ. et al. Reduced North American terrestrial primary productivity linked to anomalous Arctic warming. Nature Geosci 10, 572–576 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2986

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2986

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing