the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Atmospheric CO2 inversion reveals the Amazon as a minor carbon source caused by fire emissions, with forest uptake offsetting about half of these emissions
Abstract. Tropical forests such as the Amazonian rainforests play an important role for climate, are large carbon stores and are a treasure of biodiversity. Amazonian forests are being exposed to large scale deforestation and degradation for many decades which declined between 2005 and 2012 but more recently has again increased with similar rates as in the 2007/2008. The resulting forest fragments are exposed to substantially elevated temperatures in an already warming world. These changes are expected to affect the forests and an important diagnostic of their health and sensitivity to climate variation is their carbon balance. In a recent study based on CO2 atmospheric vertical profile observations between 2010 and 2018, and an air column budgeting technique to estimate fluxes, we reported the Amazon region as a carbon source to the atmosphere, mainly due to fire emissions. Instead of an air column budgeting technique, we use here an inverse of the global atmospheric transport model, TOMCAT, to assimilate CO2 observations from Amazon vertical profiles and global flask measurements. We thus estimate inter- and intra-annual variability in the carbon fluxes, trends over time and controls for the period 2010–2018. This represents the longest Bayesian inversion of these atmospheric CO2 profile observations to date. Our analyses indicate that the Amazon is a small net source of carbon to the atmosphere (mean 2010–2018 = 0.13 ± 0.17 PgC y−1, where 0.17 is the 1-σ uncertainty), with the majority of the emissions coming from the eastern region (77 % of total Amazon emission). Fire is the primary driver of the Amazonian source (0.26 ± 0.13 PgC y−1), however the forest uptake likely removes around half of the fire emissions to the atmosphere (−0.13 ± 0.20 PgC y−1). The largest net carbon sink was observed in the western-central Amazon region (72 % of the fire emissions). We find larger carbon emissions during the extreme drought years (such as 2010, 2015 and 2016), correlated with increases in temperature, cumulative water deficit and burned area. Despite the increase in total carbon emissions during drought years, we do not observe a significant trend over time in our carbon total, fire and net biome exchange estimates between 2010 and 2018. Our analysis thus cannot provide clear evidence for a weakening of the carbon uptake by Amazonian tropical forests.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6421 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6421 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luana Basso, 12 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-19', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Mar 2023
The objective of this study was to estimate the total magnitude and interannual variability of carbon fluxes over the Amazon basin through the use of inverse modeling techniques. The study utilized important vertical measurements of CO2 and CO over Amazonia and measurements from surface monitoring networks. Two sets of biospheric prior fluxes were used for inversion, and the study assessed whether the conclusions were influenced by prior emissions. The results of the study indicated that the Amazon region was a small carbon source to the atmosphere, mainly due to fire emissions, which corroborates the results reported by Gatti et al. (2021), albeit with varying magnitudes. The study also examined the contributions of different regions to the Amazonian carbon budget and found that emissions in the eastern Amazon were greater than those in the western region, primarily due to fires. Overall, this study is of great interest to the global carbon community. However, readers could benefit from additional details in certain areas. Furthermore, discussing the limitations of the study and potential avenues for future research would further enhance the impact of the study.
General Comments.
The model setup needs to be described in more detail to help readers visualize the experiment setup. The spin-up used for simulations, and any other relevant details should be provided. Additionally, since vertical profiles are being assimilated, discussing and providing validation plots regarding vertical transport would be beneficial. It is important to consider how much uncertainty in vertical transport might affect the results. The uncertainties and impacts associated with the coarse resolution of the inversion on the results should also be discussed. Additionally, it would be useful to know if all sites used in the inversion have full data coverage or if some have discontinuous data. The information on the data period should also be included in Table A1.
It is not clear whether the inversion is performed globally or regionally. If it is performed globally, it would be useful to compare the simulated growth rate with the observed global growth rate as a metric to test the modeled growth. (e.g., Fig. 5d in Chandra et al., 2022: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/9215/2022/).
The author used the same profiles used in the inversion for the evaluation of atmospheric inversion. However, evaluating the inversion using independent observations not used in the inversion, e.g., HIPPO, AToM, CONTRAIL, or other regular aircraft measurements from other campaigns, would be more rigorous.
It is unclear which fire emissions are used in the calculation. For example, in line#165, it is mentioned that the fire emissions are optimized in the CO2 inversion estimate. Then, Section 2.2.3 discusses the optimization of carbon fire emissions from INVICAT using MOPITT CO. It is unclear whether these two are independent or the same. Additionally, it is unclear which fire emissions are used in the calculations of the Amazonia carbon budget. A comparison plot of prior and optimized BB will be helpful to visualize the correction in BB emissions.
Technical Comments
At line#231, the biomass burning emission ratios are given as 16 ppm CO/ppm CO2. IS the unit correct (or ppb/ppm)? And this number is not found in the cited reference.
The country boundaries in Figure 1 make it too messy. It would be better to remove the country boundaries and include the mask of the Amazon. Including the abbreviation of site names would also be helpful.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-19-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luana Basso, 12 May 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luana Basso, 12 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-19', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Mar 2023
The objective of this study was to estimate the total magnitude and interannual variability of carbon fluxes over the Amazon basin through the use of inverse modeling techniques. The study utilized important vertical measurements of CO2 and CO over Amazonia and measurements from surface monitoring networks. Two sets of biospheric prior fluxes were used for inversion, and the study assessed whether the conclusions were influenced by prior emissions. The results of the study indicated that the Amazon region was a small carbon source to the atmosphere, mainly due to fire emissions, which corroborates the results reported by Gatti et al. (2021), albeit with varying magnitudes. The study also examined the contributions of different regions to the Amazonian carbon budget and found that emissions in the eastern Amazon were greater than those in the western region, primarily due to fires. Overall, this study is of great interest to the global carbon community. However, readers could benefit from additional details in certain areas. Furthermore, discussing the limitations of the study and potential avenues for future research would further enhance the impact of the study.
General Comments.
The model setup needs to be described in more detail to help readers visualize the experiment setup. The spin-up used for simulations, and any other relevant details should be provided. Additionally, since vertical profiles are being assimilated, discussing and providing validation plots regarding vertical transport would be beneficial. It is important to consider how much uncertainty in vertical transport might affect the results. The uncertainties and impacts associated with the coarse resolution of the inversion on the results should also be discussed. Additionally, it would be useful to know if all sites used in the inversion have full data coverage or if some have discontinuous data. The information on the data period should also be included in Table A1.
It is not clear whether the inversion is performed globally or regionally. If it is performed globally, it would be useful to compare the simulated growth rate with the observed global growth rate as a metric to test the modeled growth. (e.g., Fig. 5d in Chandra et al., 2022: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/9215/2022/).
The author used the same profiles used in the inversion for the evaluation of atmospheric inversion. However, evaluating the inversion using independent observations not used in the inversion, e.g., HIPPO, AToM, CONTRAIL, or other regular aircraft measurements from other campaigns, would be more rigorous.
It is unclear which fire emissions are used in the calculation. For example, in line#165, it is mentioned that the fire emissions are optimized in the CO2 inversion estimate. Then, Section 2.2.3 discusses the optimization of carbon fire emissions from INVICAT using MOPITT CO. It is unclear whether these two are independent or the same. Additionally, it is unclear which fire emissions are used in the calculations of the Amazonia carbon budget. A comparison plot of prior and optimized BB will be helpful to visualize the correction in BB emissions.
Technical Comments
At line#231, the biomass burning emission ratios are given as 16 ppm CO/ppm CO2. IS the unit correct (or ppb/ppm)? And this number is not found in the cited reference.
The country boundaries in Figure 1 make it too messy. It would be better to remove the country boundaries and include the mask of the Amazon. Including the abbreviation of site names would also be helpful.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-19-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luana Basso, 12 May 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
462 | 290 | 18 | 770 | 8 | 12 |
- HTML: 462
- PDF: 290
- XML: 18
- Total: 770
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Chris Wilson
Martyn P. Chipperfield
Graciela Tejada
Henrique L. G. Cassol
Egídio Arai
Mathew Williams
T. Luke Smallman
Wouter Peters
Stijn Naus
John B. Miller
Manuel Gloor
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6421 KB) - Metadata XML