the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The impact of climate extremes on northern and southern hemisphere seasonal ecosystem productivity over four decades to 2018
Abstract. Climate extremes affect ecosystem performance across the globe, including net seasonal productivity (NSP), the difference between land surface carbon uptake in summer and release in winter. In this study we correlated estimates of NSP, obtained from atmospheric carbon (C) observations, with curated climate extreme indices that span from 1977 to 2018, split between the Northern (NH) and Southern hemispheres (SH). In the NH, wet climate extremes correlated with an increase in summer uptake of C, and hot climate extremes were correlated with reduced winter release of C. Together, hotter and wetter climate extremes in the NH correlated with increased NSP, a finding that supports a beneficial effect of warming climates in high latitude seasonal NH forests, where cold temperatures typically limit ecosystem productivity. In the SH, all 10 hot climate extremes examined correlated negatively with summer C uptake, and NSP in the SH was negatively correlated with hot extremes but positively correlated with wet and cold extremes. The results indicate that seasonality in the SH, which is predominately located in warm tropical and subtropical forests, seem to be more deleteriously impact by heat than the NH, presumably due to the ambient temperature of SH forests being already close to biological heat thresholds such as photosynthetic heat stability. Increases in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) in the NH was associated with wetter and hotter climates that drove down winter C loss and led to increases in NSP. In the SH an increase in the SOI was associated with wetter climates that correlated with increased summer C uptake and NSP. The findings highlight the contrast between NH and SH seasonal C flux responses to climate extremes, and the importance of climate drivers of temperature and rainfall extremes in determining global ecosystem performance.
- Preprint
(1730 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(301 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3927', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3927', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Oct 2026
Summary
This manuscript examines associations between climate extremes and seasonal carbon exchange in both hemispheres over 1977–2018, using detrended CO₂ records from two stations. The authors report contrasting relationships between hot extremes and net seasonal productivity (NSP) across hemispheres, and positive associations between SOI and NSP in both.
The hemispheric comparison addresses an interesting question. However, the interpretation of the atmospheric observations, the definition and ecological meaning of NSP, and the statistical support for the principal conclusions require further clarification and analysis. Several inconsistencies between the text and figures also need to be resolved, and the clarity of the writing should be improved.
Major:
1. Representativeness of the atmospheric CO₂ records
The interpretation of the records as quantitative estimates of hemispheric terrestrial carbon uptake and release requires stronger justification (Lines 120–142). Their status as high-quality baseline stations does not necessarily mean that their seasonal CO₂ variations represent integrated terrestrial fluxes across the respective hemispheres. Many other factors could impact the records. Please explain the spatial representativeness of each station and assess the uncertainty introduced by using one station per hemisphere. Independent comparisons with other stations or atmospheric inversion estimates would strengthen the interpretation. If such validation is not feasible, the authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and narrow their hemispheric ecosystem-level conclusions accordingly.
2. Definition and calculation of NSP
The physical meaning of NSP needs to be established more clearly (Lines 128–161). Please explain how this quantity differs from established measures such as net ecosystem productivity (NEP), seasonal CO₂ amplitude, and anomalies in atmospheric CO₂ growth, and why it provides a useful measure of ecosystem performance.
The authors calculate NSP after detrending the atmospheric CO₂ records. Please justify this choice and explain how removing the long-term trend affects the physical meaning and ecological interpretation of the resulting NSP estimates.
Providing explicit equations for seasonal uptake, release, and NSP, including the sign conventions and the pairing of uptake and release periods across calendar years would be super helpful for readers to understand the method clearly.
This clarification is especially necessary because the definition in Lines 160–161 appears to have the opposite subtraction order from the Figure 2 caption.
3. Statistical support for the climate-carbon relationships
The statistical evidence supporting the principal conclusions needs to be strengthened. Many correlations in Figure 4 are weak, with coefficients around ±0.2, yet their directions are used to support broad conclusions about the effects of hot and wet extremes on carbon exchange. Confidence intervals and significance levels are not provided. Please report the sample size, correlation coefficient, uncertainty, and statistical significance for the relationships discussed, and distinguish exploratory patterns from statistically supported findings. Section 3.3 would also benefit from reporting the variance explained by SOI, alongside regression slopes and significance levels.
4. Some mechanistic interpretations exceed the evidence presented
The analyses establish associations but do not directly identify causal effects of climate extremes on ecosystem carbon exchange. Statements that particular extremes “drive” changes in uptake, release, or NSP should therefore be moderated unless supported by additional analyses that address competing explanations.
5. Concerns for using annual index to explain the seasonal pattern
Please justify correlating annual climate indices with seasonal carbon uptake and release. Annual extremes may occur outside the corresponding carbon-exchange period, particularly when seasons span calendar years. Clarifying the temporal alignment and assessing seasonally matched indices would strengthen the interpretation.
Minor:
Abstract: The abstract currently reads largely as a catalogue of results. I would suggest authors provide a clearer statement of the knowledge gap and its importance, briefly describe the approach, and focus on principal findings.
Climate indexes: Many climate indices appear to show similar behaviour and may contain overlapping information. Please examine their intercorrelations and address multiple testing. Consistent signs across closely related indices should not be interpreted as independent evidence. The claim of contrasting hemispheric responses would also be strengthened by directly testing whether the relationships differ between hemispheres, rather than relying on opposite signs.
Section 2.3, beginning at Line 163: This section reads primarily as a list of index definitions. Please explain the rationale for selecting these indices and grouping them into the five categories. A table could present the definitions more clearly while allowing the main text to focus on their relevance to the research question.
Language and consistency: Please edit the manuscript for grammatical clarity and consistent terminology, particularly for carbon uptake, release, NSP, and climate extreme categories. Ensure that the abstract, results, discussion, and figure captions describe the same quantities and relationships.
Line & Figure comments:
Line 24: Please define the period referred to as “summer” in each hemisphere and use this terminology consistently throughout the manuscript.
Line 27: Revise “seem to be more deleteriously impact” to “seems to be more deleteriously impacted,” or rewrite the sentence for clarity.
Line 61: Please verify the citation to Dunn et al. (2020). As listed in the references, this paper describes the HadEX3 dataset and does not appear to be the appropriate source for the preceding claim about the latitudinal pattern of CO₂ fertilization. Please check the correspondence between other claims and their cited sources as well.
Lines 230–231: The reference to Figure 2c appears incorrect because the sentence discusses exchange rates, which are shown in Figure 2a.
Line 234: The Southern Hemisphere NSP trend is reported as 0.001 Pg C yr⁻¹, whereas the Figure 2d legend gives 0.003 Pg C yr⁻¹. Please reconcile these values and systematically check numerical consistency between the text and figures across the paper.
Figures 3–5 captions, including Line 318: “Temperature extreme index” is used even though the analyses include precipitation indices. Do you refer to the “climate extreme index”? If yes, please use “climate extreme index” consistently where both temperature and precipitation are included.
Figure 4 placement: Please place Figure 4 closer to Section 3.2, where its results are discussed. Its current placement after Section 3.3 makes the sequence harder to follow.
Figure 5: The overlapping circle and square markers are difficult to distinguish. Consider using separate panels, transparency, or more distinct marker styles. Although the caption explains the solid and dashed lines, adding this information to the figure legend would improve readability.
Line 410: The link between the proposed cellular heat-stress responses, their energetic costs, and the observed hemispheric-scale correlations with DTR is unclear. Please explain the intermediate steps and provide supporting evidence, or explicitly present this mechanism as a hypothesis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3927-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 201 | 103 | 32 | 336 | 52 | 28 | 35 |
- HTML: 201
- PDF: 103
- XML: 32
- Total: 336
- Supplement: 52
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Referee report:
Title: The impact of climate extremes on northern and southern hemisphere seasonal ecosystem productivity over four decades to 2018
Author(s): Andrew P. Scafaro, Owen K. Atkin
MS No.: egusphere-2026-3927
MS type: Research article
The manuscript presents an approach for understanding the impact of meteorological extremes on the global uptake of carbon on an annual, hemispheric scale. By linking the atmospheric record of CO2 recorded at a northern and southern hemisphere tall tower observatory with a record of global extremes, the authors explore the statistical relationship between temperature and moisture extremes with the annual carbon uptake and release. Methodologically, the authors would better support their results and conclusions by demonstrating the relationship between aggregated extreme events and the variability of the global carbon cycle. The authors would better demonstrate the novelty/importance of their analysis if they more adequately located their results within the large corpus of literature addressing extreme events and the interannual variability of the carbon cycle. Without this, the novelty and potential impact of this paper are difficult to assess.
Major comments:
Minor comments:
Small corrections:
27 – impact -> impacted
30 – was -> were
Introduction
49 – through global… -> from global
87 – matching -> comparing
Materials and Methods
165 - which indices?
169 – This sentence is unclear
189-194 – PRCP, PRCPTOT not defined