IPSL-Perm-LandN: improving the IPSL Earth System Model to represent permafrost carbon-nitrogen interactions

Gaillard, Rémi; Cadule, Patricia; Peylin, Philippe; Vuichard, Nicolas; Guenet, Bertrand

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-3656

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3656

Preprints

15 Sep 2025

| 15 Sep 2025

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

IPSL-Perm-LandN: improving the IPSL Earth System Model to represent permafrost carbon-nitrogen interactions

Rémi Gaillard, Patricia Cadule, Philippe Peylin, Nicolas Vuichard, and Bertrand Guenet

Abstract. Permafrost soils have the potential to release large amounts of soil carbon to the atmosphere under climate change. However, in the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), only two Earth System Models (ESM) represented permafrost carbon, both sharing the same land surface model. This makes future permafrost carbon dynamics highly uncertain and underscores the urgent need to include permafrost carbon in ESMs to enable more reliable future projections of climate change and remaining carbon budget estimates. Here, we present IPSL-Perm-LandN, an improved version of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL) ESM (used for CMIP6) aiming at better representing high-latitude land ecosystems. The main developments are the inclusion of an explicit nitrogen cycle and of key permafrost physical and biogeochemical processes. The latent heat associated with soil water freeze/thaw is taken into account in the energy budget, as well as soil thermal insulation by soil organic matter and a surface organic layer (e.g. litter or moss). Soil organic carbon and nitrogen are vertically resolved with a depth-dependent decomposition dynamics, a key feature for representing the effect of gradual permafrost thaw on soil biogeochemistry. Cryoturbation is represented as a diffusion process that buries organic matter in the deeper soil layers. Compared to the previous version of the model used for CMIP6, we show that the extent of the permafrost region has improved significantly and that the simulated active layer thickness in the Arctic is in better agreement with observations. Permafrost soil carbon stocks have increased 20-fold to reach 1006 PgC in the top 3 meters of soil, which is consistent with observation-based estimates. We simulate that the permafrost region has been a net carbon sink over the past 150 years (+0.32±0.04 PgC.yr^-1 on average between 2005 and 2014), primarily due to carbon uptake from boreal forests. This is comparable with recent pan-Arctic carbon balance estimates, when accounting for unrepresented processes in our model (fire and riverine carbon losses). Overall, the inclusion of permafrost processes has improved the response of the model to anthropogenic perturbations in high latitudes over the past century, marking a step forward in the representation of Arctic ecosystems.

Received: 04 Aug 2025 – Discussion started: 15 Sep 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Rémi Gaillard, Patricia Cadule, Philippe Peylin, Nicolas Vuichard, and Bertrand Guenet

Status: open (until 18 Nov 2025)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3656', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Nov 2025 reply
General comments
This manuscript presents IPSL-Perm-LandN, an improved version of IPSL-CM6A-LR (used in CMIP6), incorporating a representation of key permafrost physical and biogeochemical processes and an explicit nitrogen cycle, for a better representation of high-latitude land ecosystems. The authors present the methodological details on the implementation of the model modifications for the relevant processes. In addition to relevant metrics and evaluations regarding permafrost dynamics and land carbon-cycle dynamics, the manuscript also provides an assessment and evaluation of atmospheric physics (here limited to temperature and precipitation) and ocean physics.

The manuscript provides relevant and novel results with regard to permafrost physics and carbon dynamics in historical simulations based on model modifications that address an important research gap. As the majority of CMIP climate models lack an adequate representation of permafrost physics, an assessment of the permafrost carbon-climate feedback was limited in CMIP6 and therefore AR6. The next iteration of climate models is in need of the inclusion of the relevant processes. This manuscript provides a description of including these processes in one of the participating CMIP models, which is not only a step towards a better representation of permafrost in CMIP, but could also serve as a blueprint for other climate models to consider the relevant processes.

I do have a few questions and comments, which I consider overall minor, that I would like the authors to address.

The manuscript is well written, structured and generally reads fluently. While the manuscript is quite long, the structuring and flow of the text help its understanding. However, several of the sentences in the Results Section (often the first sentence of the paragraph) do not explicitly state that they refer to the IPSL-Perm-LandN version (which I assume from the context and interpreting the figures), and therefore leave it up to interpretation for the reader. I suggest to carefully go through the Results Section to add these clarifications. I have indicated a few in my ‘Specific Comments’, but there may be more occurrences.

I commend the effort to assemble and present all model results in comparison to observations, and also evaluate the atmosphere and ocean to contextualize the results on permafrost modeling. Beyond that, the manuscript provides a valuable and concisely presented reference for other studies to compare their results to, with respect to both modeling results and observational products.

The methodological modifications presented here and the assumptions taken generally look good to me. Minor comments towards the methods are also specified in 'Specific Comments’.
I appreciate that the simulations presented here are run over the historical period, also because this lends itself to the evaluation with respect to observational products. Nonetheless, the efforts to improve the wider suite of CMIP models with regard to permafrost representation are often made with the motivation to address future changes of the climate. A comment in that direction was made in the, somewhat short, Conclusions Section, but I would appreciate some more discussion on how the improvements made in IPSL-Perm-LandN could/will improve the future assessment of permafrost changes and the associated permafrost carbon-climate feedback. Further, have the authors done any future experiments of note that could be presented here? Or will those be addressed in a separate follow-up paper?

Will the modifications of IPSL-Perm-LandN be incorporated in the next IPSL model version (i.e., for CMIP7)? And how does this operationally affect the spin-up/initialization strategy presented here, given that soil carbon initialization was done offline here?

Going into the manuscript, I expected an evaluation of the effect of the model changes on the permafrost carbon-climate feedback (even in the historical period). However, this assessment is not (directly) possible in the CO2-concentration driven simulations conducted here. What was the reasoning behind choosing to run CO2-concentration driven simulations? And can the results presented in Section 4.7 help to infer any of these results? Equally, with regards to this, the reader may appreciate some more discussion in the Conclusions section.

Specific comments
Line 28: ‘vegetation productivity in a negative feedback loop’ – Please add a short explanation of this feedback, as this is otherwise unclear to the reader. Also, it seems that two mechanisms are mixed here: 1) increased veg carbon sink from CO2 fertilization that decreases the atmospheric CO2 concentration (and therefore offsets permafrost carbon loss), and 2) the provision of nutrients from permafrost thaw increases veg productivity. However, many models show that the inclusion of a nitrogen cycle rather leads to a limitation of nitrogen (at least in future simulations), suppressing vegetation productivity.

Line 29: ‘soil carbon losses’ – rather the positive climate feedback from such soil carbon losses and therefore some of the subsequent loss that would occur in the absence of the negative feedback (Arora et al. 2020, Gier et al. 2024). Also, Gier et al. 2024 should be cited in appropriate places.

Lines 45-46: Should also cite Natali et al. (2021)

Line 48: Should also cite de Vrese et al. (2023) and Steinert et al. (2021)

Line 62: ‘only half (six out of eleven)’ – is this number based on the models used in Arora et al. (2020)? … because they don’t use all available CMIP models (just those that provide specific 1pctCo2-bgc and -rad simulations).

Line 71: ‘coupled carbon and nitrogen cycles’ – worth pointing out that these are vertically resolved

Lines 79-80: Sentence starting with ‘These new…’ – Technically, this was possible with ORCHIDEE-v2, just not as good, right?

Line 166: ‘Soil moisture is resolved on a 11-layer scheme down to 2m’ – Is this down to the bedrock level? And where is the bedrock level located?

Line 168: ‘bottom boundary’ – Does this refer to the 2m of soil moisture levels?

Line 168: ‘buffer’ – also known as the zero-curtain effect.

Lines 227-230: I can see that these assumptions are sensible, but beyond that, are they supported by any literature? If yes, it would strengthen these assumptions by citing these.

Line 245: Please clarify what ‘intensive nature’ means here.

Line 373: ‘similar to’ – I understand that these are identical not similar?

Line 420: C4MIP has not been introduced. Also, does this mean, when considering CMIP models herein, this always refers to C4MIP models? (I see that it does in the results, would be good to specify this here).

Line 434: Should also cite Cai et al. (2020).

Line 469: ‘linear interpolation’ – technically an exponential vertical interpolation would be more appropriate given that vertical heat distribution is assumed to be exponential, but I guess this has only minor impact on the estimated temperature at 3m?

Line 493: Add that this refers to IPSL-Perm-LandN. Further clarifications are needed in Lines 582, 590 (see below), 593, 604 (see below), 617 (see below), 622 (see below), 682 (see below),

Line 504: ‘high warming comes mainly from the tropics’ – Four sentences prior, it was said that the tropics are anomalously cold. Or does this refer to the warming rates? Or does this imply that over land the model warms more than expected, and therefore that relative absolute decreased temperatures appear over the ocean? (Though, further down the (global) ocean seems to be much warmer as well). Please revise this paragraph and more explicitly include which metric (land/ocean, global/regional, absolute/rate) you refer to.

Lines 504-505: Sentence starting with ‘In particular,…’ – Could be moved to line 498 as the previous sentence implies that.

Lines 510-511: Repetition. Remove.

522: ‘0.16 mm.day-1’ – would be helpful to also give this in percent.

529: ‘which is associated with the position of the North Atlantic drift’ – As discussed further below, also because of a weaker AMOC. Might be worth to already mention here to connect these thoughts.

Line 585: ‘unsurprisingly’ – better use ‘expectedly’

Line 590: I assume this is a general statement that applies to both model versions?

Lines 596-597: Sentence starting with ‘’GPP is…’ – Is it because Arctic amplification is high? I presume not, since both models are quite similar in that regard, but they are not for GPP. So, is it all due to nitrogen fertilization? Or just tuning? (Is this what you mean by ‘These differences’ in the last sentence of this paragraph?

Lines 596-599: For both sentences, please add a discussion as to why this is/could be.

Line 604: ‘the model’ I assume this refers to IPSL-Perm-LandN? In the previous sentence you talk about IPSL-CM6A-LR.

Line 606: ‘These differences’ – Which exactly? In the previous sentences you talk about similarities between the two model versions.

Line 614: ‘estimates’ – which type of estimates? Observations, models? And why is this not in Figure 7 then?

Line 617: ‘The modeled RH…’ – In IPSL-Perm-LandN I assume?

Line 620: ‘reinforcing our confidence in these results’ – I can’t quite follow why this reinforces confidence in the results. In the previous section you have argued and shown that GPP and RH are well correlated, so both having the same bias compared to observations in not surprising and does not necessarily increase the robustness of the findings, depending on how large the offset to observations is. Please clarify.

Lines 622-623: Worth mentioning that this sentences refers to model data and applies to both models

Lines 630-631: Sentence starting with ‘This is…’ – Does this mean modelled NBP is wrong by a factor of 2 because of that in all models?

Figures 8 and 10: Would be helpful to have a zero reference line in panel (a) in both figures.

Figures 8 and 10 captions: Worth mentioning that positive means land uptake in both figures.

Line 682: Specify that this refers to IPSL-Perm-LandN. Also, ‘historical period’ –This is true for IPSL-CM6A-LR for the last decade but not the whole historical period, which can be misunderstood as such from the first half sentence.

Line 686: ‘permafrost region may differ between models’ – and even more so because their representation of permafrost and soil carbon differs substantially?!

Line 699: ‘medium SOC pool’ – Weren’t these introduced as active, slow and passive in Section 2.4.1? Where does the medium pool come from?

Lines 732-733: subsentence in brackets – Would you therefore expect IPSL-CM6A-LR to drift away from what looks to be a very good agreement with GCB considering longer timescales (e.g. longer spin-up or future simulations)?

Section 4.7: I am missing some discussion on the implications of the differences in the compatible CO2 emissions found between the two model versions. What does it tell us when, as in this case, cumulative compatible CO2 emissions are lower in IPSL-Perm-LandN? And what does this tell us about implications for the permafrost carbon-climate feedback?

Lines 742-743: Sentence starting with ‘They are…’ – Wouldn’t you expect that, given that those are concentration-driven experiments?

745: ‘(Rubino et al., 2013)’ – Not sure I am seeing the stabilization in the reference. Can you indicate the figure here? Also, what alternative role do volcanic eruptions play here?

Line 746: ‘The models’ – I assume this generally refers to CMIP models? Is this a consistent feature of all models?

Line 754: ‘21^st century’ – specify this refers only to up to 2014.

Technical corrections
Line 10: remove ‘a’ in front of ‘depth-dependent decomposition dynamics’

Line 103: ‘used is’ --> ‘used in’

Lines 117-118: ‘ocean physics is … and is …’ – should be ‘are’ in both cases, I think.

Line 518: ‘represented on’ --> ‘represented in’

Figure 6 caption, line 3: ‘observations’ --> ‘observational’

Line 637: ‘mid-high’ --> ‘mid-to-high’

References:
Arora, V. K., Katavouta, A., Williams, R. G., Jones, C. D., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., Schwinger, J., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Christian, J. R., Delire, C., Fisher, R. A., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Joetzjer, E., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C. D., Krasting, J. P., Law, R. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lenton, A., Lindsay, K., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J. F., Wiltshire, A., Wu, T., and Ziehn, T.: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models, Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020.

Cai, L., Lee, H., Aas, K. S., and Westermann, S.: Projecting circum-Arctic excess-ground-ice melt with a sub-grid representation in the Community Land Model, The Cryosphere, 14, 4611–4626, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4611-2020, 2020.

de Vrese, P., Georgievski, G., Gonzalez Rouco, J. F., Notz, D., Stacke, T., Steinert, N. J., Wilkenskjeld, S., and Brovkin, V.: Representation of soil hydrology in permafrost regions may explain large part of inter-model spread in simulated Arctic and subarctic climate, The Cryosphere, 17, 2095–2118, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2095-2023, 2023.

Gier, B. K., Schlund, M., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Jones, C., Zaehle, S., and Eyring, V.: Representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle in CMIP6, Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024.

Natali, Susan M., John P. Holdren, Brendan M. Rogers, Rachael Treharne, Philip B. Duffy, Rafe Pomerance, and Erin MacDonald. 2021. “Permafrost carbon feedbacks threaten global climate goals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (21): e2100163118.

Steinert, N. J., J. F. González-Rouco, P. de Vrese, E. García-Bustamante, S. Hagemann, C. Melo-Aguilar, J. H. Jungclaus, and S. J. Lorenz. 2021. “Increasing the Depth of a Land Surface Model. Part II: Temperature Sensitivity to Improved Subsurface Thermodynamics and Associated Permafrost Response.” Journal of Hydrometeorology 22 (12): 3231–54.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3656-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3656', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2025 reply
This manuscript describes the Earth System Model IPSL-Perm-LandN, a development based on IPSL’s CMIP6 model IPSL-CM6A-LR. Model improvements discussed here are based on a better physical representation of permafrost as well as an incorporation of vertically resolved soil carbon and an inclusion of soil nitrogen. A better representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle in general and permafrost carbon in particular in ESMs is becoming increasingly important especially since the CMIP framework is moving towards emission driven simulations instead of concentration driven simulations, and the permafrost carbon representation has been identified as a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. This study provides very relevant and important results on improvements mad in the IPSL’s contribution to CMIP and addresses important gaps in the CMIP6 contribution.
The manuscript is very well written, and results are presented in a clear and understandable manner. It addresses aspects of overall model performance, including atmosphere and ocean variables, as the model is discussed as a whole, even though improvements were restricted to the land model. The introduction would profit from a slightly broader view at the importance of representing the terrestrial carbon cycle under emission driven simulations, and the discussion would profit from a broader look at limitations of the chosen modelling set up.
I would like to echo one of the questions of reviewer 1 here: Will this be the model set up for IPSL’s contribution to CMIP7? If so, this should be emphasized in the conclusion section! Quite a number of LSMs that were used within the CMIP6 ESMs have had capabilities to represent land carbon processes better than it was done in CMIP6, but they were not included in the model set ups used for the simulations. A lot of LSM groups have made considerable improvements to their models since CMIP6, but to what degree these improvements will be part of the CMIP7 efforts remains to be seen, so if this model is IPSL’s contribution to CMIP7, that would be a nice signal to the ESM community.
I have one general comment concerning the results and discussion section with regard to permafrost dynamics and permafrost carbon. You describe a number of choices in the moel description that probably have technical reasons, but don’t seem straight forward. Their implications should be discussed in the results and discussion section.
I assume there are technical reasons why there is only a 2m soil column for soil water, and that you wanted to do carbon and nitrogen pools for greater depth, but what are the consequences on latent heat and heat flux in general that soil moisture is only computed above 2m depths? ALT can be considerably deeper than 2m.

Why is there not representation of moss and lichens as PFTs? And what processes are missing because you only consider their physical properties, but no biology?

The soil column has 18 layers extending to 90m depth, and soil moisture is only done for 11 layers in the upper 2m. You assume a soil moisture below that, how does that effect decomposition, and are these deep layers even relevant? Soil carbon is often assumed to be limited to around the upper 3m of the soil column, what do your carbon and nitrogen pools in the deepest layer look like? And I assume that the soil moisture assumption for layers below 2m is only used for calculating decomposition, so mass is conserved, but does that make any sense in 90m depth? What are the consequences of these assumptions for your top layer carbon and nitrogen pools?

I have some more minor specific comments and questions to the authors listed below.
Specific Comments:
Lines 29-32: The permafrost-carbon feedback overall remains a major source of uncertainty, which is especially important in the light of the move towards emission driven simulations, where the actual CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere will to a large degree be determined by ESM's own carbon cycles, which should be included here. See eg Steinert, N. J. and Sanderson, B. M.: Normalizing the permafrost carbon feedback contribution to the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Carbon Emissions and the Zero Emissions Commitment, Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1711–1721, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, 2025 and Sanderson, B. M., Booth, B. B. B., Dunne, J., Eyring, V., Fisher, R. A., Friedlingstein, P., Gidden, M. J., Hajima, T., Jones, C. D., Jones, C. G., King, A., Koven, C. D., Lawrence, D. M., Lowe, J., Mengis, N., Peters, G. P., Rogelj, J., Smith, C., Snyder, A. C., Simpson, I. R., Swann, A. L. S., Tebaldi, C., Ilyina, T., Schleussner, C.-F., Séférian, R., Samset, B. H., van Vuuren, D., and Zaehle, S.: The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024.
Line 44-46: There is an overview paper on the permafrost representation of the CMIP6 ESMs on a more general level than in Arora et al that should be mentioned here, Matthes, H., Damseaux, A., Westermann, S., Beer, C., Boone, A., Burke, E., ... & Wieder, W. R. (2025). Advances in Permafrost Representation: Biophysical Processes in Earth System Models and the Role of Offline Models. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 36(2), 302-318.
Line 56-59: The lack of resolving vertical soil carbon also prevents representation of abrupt permafrost thawing through eg fire or thaw slumps, which is estimated to be a major source of permafrost carbon loss (Turetsky, M.R., Abbott, B.W., Jones, M.C. et al. Carbon release through abrupt permafrost thaw. Nat. Geosci. 13, 138–143 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0526-0), even though most LSMs in ESMs miss representation of the underlying processes as well. It would still be good to mention this here, since including vertically resolved soil carbon can be seen as creating a basis for inclusion of at least some of these fast processes.
Line 179: Here, and everywhere else you show units, you separate them by a period. While that increases readability, I don’t think it’s standard notation. It should probably be changed.
Line 305ff: Maybe I misunderstand what you are describing here. There is one mineral nitrogen pool, which is associated with the surface layer. If that pool is not sufficient, nitrogen is taken from the atmosphere. Nitrogen pools however are vertically resolved. So is mineralized nitrogen available to all soil layers out of the pool in the surface layer? And can nitrogen pools in all layers draw from the atmosphere through that mechanism as well? And if so, what consequences does that have?
Line 355: Does that definition of the permafrost area used here mean that the area for which cryoturbation is calculated is dynamic?
Line 360ff: If the SoilGrids data has vertical layers until 2m depth, how do you compute values for your layers below 2m? There is no information to interpolate, you could only extrapolate, and how does that make sense when there is hardly any carbon stored below 3m depth in most of the permafrost area?
Line 369: This is more of a comment: The equilibrium approach is the one everybody uses, but even in 1850, the carbon pools were not in equilibrium.
Line 500: While the realistic warming rates are good, when looking at permafrost dynamics and thawing related carbon release, what matters at the end are absolute temperatures, since freeze/thaw processes are coupled to an absolute temperature. From your latitudinal plot, it does seem that the underestimation is mainly originating from the tropics, but I still wonder what implications are, and if there is a seasonality to the bias that could impact permafrost?
Line 520: Does the overestimation of snow fall actually lead to an overestimation of snow cover? And what about the seasonality? Could that impact your permafrost dynamics?
Line 577: The overestimation of the southern boundary of permafrost might be associated with the underestimated surface air temperatures, depending on the seasonality of that bias.
Line 578ff: Is the underestimation of permafrost at the southern edge of the Canadian permafrost associated with maybe a spatial pattern in air temperature?
Line 603: I acknowledge that attribution of effects like this are difficult, but do you have any ideas why improving the terrestrial carbon cycle representation lead to a decrease in performance when it comes to GPP?

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3656-RC2

Rémi Gaillard, Patricia Cadule, Philippe Peylin, Nicolas Vuichard, and Bertrand Guenet

Data sets

IPSL-Perm-LandN: improving the IPSL Earth System Model to represent permafrost carbon-nitrogen interactions Rémi Gaillard, Patricia Cadule, Philippe Peylin, Nicolas Vuichard, and Bertrand Guenet https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16739216

Model code and software

Rémi Gaillard, Patricia Cadule, Philippe Peylin, Nicolas Vuichard, and Bertrand Guenet

Viewed

Total article views: 1,050 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
978	62	10	1,050	13	10

HTML: 978
PDF: 62
XML: 10
Total: 1,050
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 10

Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	864	22	5	891
Oct 2025	92	31	5	128
Nov 2025	22	9	0	31

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	864	22	5	891
Oct 2025	92	31	5	128
Nov 2025	22	9	0	31

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,046 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,046 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 15 Nov 2025

Short summary

The release of carbon from thawing permafrost soils could amplify future climate warming. However, this feedback is highly uncertain because most Earth system models (ESM) do not represent permafrost carbon. We have improved the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace ESM by including permafrost physical, carbon and nitrogen processes to better represent Arctic ecosystems. The model more accurately represents past and present permafrost physics and biogeochemistry, paving the way for future projections.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0