Nitrification and denitrification in the Community Land Model compared with observations at Hubbard Brook Forest. Issue 4 (25th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nevison, Cynthia; Goodale, Christine; Hess, Peter; Wieder, William R.; Vira, Julius; Groffman, Peter M.
• Is Part Of: Ecological applications. Volume 32:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-03-25
• Subjects: CLM5.0 -- Community Land Model -- denitrification -- nitrification -- nitrogen cycle -- nitrogen limitation; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environmental protection -- Periodicals; Biology, Economic -- Periodicals; 577.05
• DOI: 10.1002/eap.2530
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1051-0761

Abstract

Abstract: Models of terrestrial system dynamics often include nitrogen (N) cycles to better represent N limitations on terrestrial carbon (C) uptake, but simulating the fate of N in ecosystems has proven challenging. Here, key soil N fluxes and flux ratios from the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5.0) are compared with an extensive set of observations from the Hubbard Brook Forest Long‐Term Ecological Research site in New Hampshire. Simulated fluxes include microbial immobilization and plant uptake, which compete with nitrification and denitrification, respectively, for available soil ammonium (NH4 + ) and nitrate (NO3 − ). In its default configuration, CLM5.0 predicts that both plant uptake and immobilization are strongly dominated by NH4 + over NO3 −, and that the model ratio of nitrification:denitrification is ~1:1. In contrast, Hubbard Brook observations suggest that NO3 − plays a more significant role in plant uptake and that nitrification could exceed denitrification by an order of magnitude. Modifications to the standard CLM5.0 at Hubbard Brook indicate that a simultaneous increase in the competitiveness of nitrifying microbes for NH4 + and reduction in the competitiveness of denitrifying bacteria for NO3 − are needed to bring soil N flux ratios into better agreement with observations. Such adjustments, combined with evaluation against observations, may help to improve confidence in present and future simulations of N limitation on the C cycle, although C fluxes, such as gross primary productivity and net primary productivity, are less sensitive to the model modifications than soil N fluxes.