the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
TECO-CNP Sv1.0: A coupled carbon-nitrogen-phosphorus model with data assimilation for subtropical forests
Abstract. Subtropical forests play a crucial role in global cycle, yet their carbon sink capacity is significantly constrained by phosphorus availability. Models that omit phosphorus dynamics risk overestimating carbon sinks, potentially undermining the scientific basis for carbon neutrality strategies. In this study, we developed TECO-CNP Sv1.0, a coupled carbon-nitrogen-phosphorus model based on the Terrestrial ECOsystem (TECO) model, explicitly capturing key biogeochemical interactions and nutrient-regulated carbon cycling. The model simulates how plant growth and carbon partitioning respond to both external soil nutrient availability and internal physiological constraints, enabling plant acclimation to varying nutrient conditions. Using observations from a phosphorus-limited subtropical forest in East China, we first evaluated model performance on estimating state variables with empirically calibrated parameters. Compared to the C-only and coupled C-N configurations, the CNP model better reproduced observed plant and soil C, N, and P pools. To systematically optimize model parameters and reduce uncertainties in predictions, we further incorporated a built-in data assimilation framework for parameter optimization. The CNP model with optimized parameters significantly improved carbon flux estimates, reducing root mean square errors and enhancing concordance correlation coefficients for gross primary productivity, ecosystem respiration, and net ecosystem exchange. By explicitly incorporating phosphorus dynamics and data assimilation, this study provides a more accurate and robust framework for predicting carbon sequestration in phosphorus-limited subtropical forests.
- Preprint
(1724 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(148 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1243', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2025
reply
Â
This is a nicely written and well-executed work implementing phosphorus cycle and data assimilation framework into a process-based ecosystem model (TECO). The novelty of this work lie in the model development and its coupling with data assimilation. By comparing CNP model against observations and their respective C-only and CN coupled models, the authors show a superior performance of the newly developed model.
Â
Overall, I enjoy reading the manuscript, and support its publication. There are several occasions where I think some justifications/modifications would further improve the quality of the manuscript. Below I list my main questions/concerns.
Â
There are certain processes where N and P interact. For example, some models consider N to have an effect on soil P biochemical mineralization rate (e.g. ORCHIDEE, ELM, etc.). It does not seem that the authors have adopted these NP interacting processes in their model. Furthermore, others consider N and P to have joint effect on C processes, such as photosynthesis. In this work, it seems that nutrient effect on photosynthesis is realized via downregulation of leaf surface area. There have been some empirical relationships derived on how N and P affects photosynthetic traits (e.g. Vcmax, Jmax; Ellsworth et al., 2022; Walker et al,, 2014), and these relationships have been incorporated into models. What is the authors’ consideration on not following these conventional approaches? Â
Solution P is part of labile P, and some work suggests the need to explicitly model solution P in addition to labile P (e.g. Reed et al., 2015). In this work, how does the author consider this suggestion and what is the rationale for only simulating labile P?
It seems that the data assimilation framework was only applied to the CNP model, and then the authors reported CN and C models to overestimate observations. I find this logic to be a bit problematic. Without data assimilation, does CNP model still achieve better match with observations? Alternatively, how does C-only model coupled with data assimilation perform relative to observations? If it can achieve similar performance as compared to CNP model, what benefits of having a CNP model?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1243-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
227 | 46 | 7 | 280 | 22 | 9 | 10 |
- HTML: 227
- PDF: 46
- XML: 7
- Total: 280
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1