the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Divergent predictions of northern peatland responses to climate warming and elevated CO2: A multi-model intercomparison at the SPRUCE experiment
Abstract. Peatlands cover only ~3 % of Earth’s land surface yet store ~30 % of global soil carbon (C), making them critical components of the terrestrial C cycle and influential regulators of C-climate feedbacks. However, their responses to climate warming and elevated CO₂ remain highly uncertain, in part because Earth system models represent peatland processes with varying levels of complexity and realism, and because peat C pools turn over on centennial to millennial timescales that challenge model evaluation. Here, we present results from the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) Model Intercomparison Project (SPRUCE-MIP), which evaluates 15 terrestrial ecosystem models against observations from a long-term whole-ecosystem warming and CO₂-enrichment experiment at an ombrotrophic bog in northern Minnesota, USA. Models were driven by observed meteorology from in situ warming treatments spanning +0 to +9 °C, at either ambient or elevated CO₂ (+500 ppm). Simulated net ecosystem exchange (NEE), net primary productivity (NPP), heterotrophic respiration (HR), and methane (CH₄) fluxes were benchmarked against multi-year observations. Model predictions exhibit a large spread in both baseline C balance, ranging from strong sinks to strong sources under +0 °C warming, and temperature sensitivity, indicating substantial uncertainty in predicting peatland C responses to environmental forcing. Across the ensemble, models fall into four distinct functional response types: (i) models that simulate peatlands as net C sources across all warming and CO₂ conditions; (ii) models that transition from C sinks to sources under warming irrespective of CO₂ level; (iii) models that transition only under ambient CO₂ but remain C sinks under elevated CO₂, reflecting strong CO₂ fertilization effects; and (iv) models that maintain persistent sinks or near-neutral C balance even under extreme warming. While most models predict enhanced NPP under elevated CO₂ across all warming treatments, SPRUCE observations show little or no NPP enhancement under elevated CO₂ at the +0 and +2.25 °C warming levels, with a positive CO₂ fertilization effect emerging only under stronger warming. This discrepancy highlights persistent model biases in representing interactions between warming and CO₂ responses. Process-based analysis further indicates that divergence in modeled responses is associated with differences in vegetation structure (light competition and moss representation), nutrient cycling (nitrogen and phosphorus), and dynamic peat representation. These structural differences systematically influence ecosystem productivity, heterotrophic respiration, and net C balance across the model ensemble. An illustrative parameter sensitivity analysis using the SPRUCE-specific Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model (ELM-SPRUCE) further shows that parameter choices can also modulate the magnitude of simulated responses. Together, these results demonstrate that peatland responses to warming and elevated CO2 are highly sensitive to model structure, parameterization, and process coupling, highlighting the need for improved representation of key peatland processes to reduce uncertainty in Earth system projections. The SPRUCE experimental framework provides a unique benchmark for evaluation and improving process representation and constraining near-term peatland response to environmental change, thereby strengthening confidence in longer-term C-climate projections.
- Preprint
(4403 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(9022 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Nov 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5193', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 344 | 161 | 74 | 579 | 85 | 68 | 71 |
- HTML: 344
- PDF: 161
- XML: 74
- Total: 579
- Supplement: 85
- BibTeX: 68
- EndNote: 71
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors are describing and analyzing simulation results obtained by 15 models to reproduce the SPRUCE experimental framework that aims to study ecosystems’ response to elevation of atmospheric CO2 concentration and increasing air and soil temperature.
This study solely focuses on net ecosystem exchange, net primary productivity, heterotrophic respiration and methane soil surface fluxes. An ANOVA type II analysis provided insight on how significant biogeochemical processes accounted in models are responding in CO2 and CH4 fluxes under each scenario of atmospheric temperature and CO2 elevation. And a parameter sensitivity analysis has been conducted for the ELM-SPRUCE model and for two scenarios at +0°C warming and under ambient and elevated CO2 conditions.
The main manuscript is easy to read and contains 4 figures and 3 tables for near 30 pages of text and 8 figures in supplementary. The goal of this study is of significance for the climate and modelling communities since it underscores the need to enhance model response to short-terms and long-terms processes and to challenge their features and capability in simulating future climatic changes imposed to ecosystems and ecosystems’ adaptations.
I have some concerns about the study conception. The first aim of the study is a model comparison to evaluate capability of models simulating the SPRUCE experiment. My understanding of the SPRUCE experiment is that it takes place, at least for plots of interest to the present study, in a forested peatland where atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration are controlled and plots’ soil temperature are also increased.
However, the simulation protocol only constrains models on meteorological forcing. Knowing that soil temperature and moisture are the main drivers of soil biogeochemical processes, I would expect at least for simulated soil temperature to be constrained since in the experimental protocol both atmospheric and soil temperature are controlled and recorded, I believe.
About soil moisture, since soil temperature has been experimentally modified, I would expect soil moisture to be modified as well. In some models it can be difficult to constrain soil moisture therefore it will be nice to diplay an observations vs simulations comparison in supplementary so the reader can be informed that different setting has been used for such and such models instead of the generic sentence line 237 “Water table depth was also provided for the models that required this variable as a driver."
My last concern about the study conception is on simulated SOC content. Peatlands are defined as water logged ecosystems composed of at least 30 or 40cm deep of organic rich (more than 20% organic content) SOC content. In the manuscript, the modelling protocol does not specify the number of years each model underwent to accomplish spin up equilibrium line 215: “During the initial spin-up phase, each model was driven to equilibrium under pre-industrial conditions by repeatedly cycling the 2015-2021 atmospheric forcing data ». Additionally, it will be of strong interest to the read to be able to assess SOC vertical profile accumulated in each model to be able to evaluate NEE, NPP, HR and methane flux results. It will be also interesting to evaluate the relationship for each model of SOC content in the top 30 or 50 cm and the NEE, NPP, HR and methane flux.
In general, the manuscript should include more results description and explanation and would benefit to have more figures and tables that synthesis the main results and highlight the authors’ view. To guide the authors in that direction, see below some comments and suggestions:
- In the result section it will be helping the reader whether the authors add symbols (star, square, triangle, …) next to the model names to highlight relevant model features such as explicit SOC peat process, moss, activated CH4 processes, nutrient limitation, etc…
- There is a page of results describing the response of NEE to warming starting line 433 prior to section 3.2. Net ecosystem carbon exchange warming responses. I understand that in section 3.2 the authors used sensitivity to warming approach that is different than results presented in section 3.1 however it is a little repeating the results. I think these two parts can be reorganized to avoid repetition.
- Table3 displays results from a statistical approach, the number of samples used to compute each experiment need to be displayed somehow in the table. Alos it will be informative to have the number of models that are accounted for each relationship since not all models explicitly represent all processes considered in the table.
- In the discussion section, subsection 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 read like results and not discussion. For example, subsection 4.3 reanalyzes results from section 3.2. What I would expect in the discussion section is a comparison of model assemble spread of future warming scenarios for models with all types of ecosystems and study more specific such as peatland MIP and of forested ecosystems MIP compare to the spread of simulation results in the present study. Also, there are no discussion on simulated soil temperature and soil moisture and SOC content or litter to soil input.
- Figure S7: Could you enlarge the text size in the figure. It is too small to be read easily.
- Figure S8: Could you enlarge the text size in the figure. It is too small to be read easily. What is the Cflux for you? Can you be more specific in the figure caption? It will be helpful to have a table that describes all the pertubated parameters and of the simulated variables.
Other comments have been added in the attached document while reading the manuscript.