Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change

A. David McGuire; Leif G. Anderson; Torben R. Christensen; Scott Dallimore; Laodong Guo; Daniel J. Hayes; Martin Heimann; T.D. Lorenson; Robie W. Macdonald; Nigel Roulet

doi:10.1890/08-2025.1

USGS · 70168687

Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change

A. David McGuire·Leif G. Anderson·Torben R. Christensen·Scott Dallimore·Laodong Guo·Daniel J. Hayes·Martin Heimann·T.D. Lorenson·Robie W. Macdonald·Nigel Roulet

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The recent warming in the Arctic is affecting a broad spectrum of physical, ecological, and human/cultural systems that may be irreversible on century time scales and have the potential to cause rapid changes in the earth system. The response of the carbon cycle of the Arctic to changes in climate is a major issue of global concern, yet there has not been a comprehensive review of the status of the contemporary carbon cycle of the Arctic and its response to climate change. This review is designed to clarify key uncertainties and vulnerabilities in the response of the carbon cycle of the Arctic to ongoing climatic change. While it is clear that there are substantial stocks of carbon in the Arctic, there are also significant uncertainties associated with the magnitude of organic matter stocks contained in permafrost and the storage of methane hydrates beneath both subterranean and submerged permafrost of the Arctic. In the context of the global carbon cycle, this review demonstrates that the Arctic plays an important role in the global dynamics of both CO 2 and CH 4 . Studies suggest that the Arctic has been a sink for atmospheric CO 2 of between 0 and 0.8 Pg C/yr in recent decades, which is between 0% and 25% of the global net land/ocean flux during the 1990s. The Arctic is a substantial source of CH 4 to the atmosphere (between 32 and 112 Tg CH 4 /yr), primarily because of the large area of wetlands throughout the region. Analyses to date indicate that the sensitivity of the carbon cycle of the Arctic during the remainder of the 21st century is highly uncertain. To improve the capability to assess the sensitivity of the carbon cycle of the Arctic to projected climate change, we recommend that (1) integrated regional studies be conducted to link observations of carbon dynamics to the processes that are likely to influence those dynamics, and (2) the understanding gained from these integrated studies be incorporated into both uncoupled and fully coupled carbon–climate modeling efforts.

Explore related subjects

Ecological Monographs Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

A. David McGuire, Leif G. Anderson, Torben R. Christensen, Scott Dallimore, Laodong Guo, Daniel J. Hayes, Martin Heimann, T.D. Lorenson, Robie W. Macdonald, Nigel Roulet. 2009. Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2025.1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Probabilistic forecasting of coastal wetland elevation and soil carbon response to sea-level rise

Tidal wetlands build soil as a dynamic response to inundation, resulting in carbon sequestration and resilience to sea-level rise. Process models can be used to make site-specific forecasts, anticipate future changes, and plan management responses. But to be actionable, forecasts from these models need to be accompanied by descriptions of their confidence. In this study, we demonstrate the application of ecological forecasting principles to the unique case of tidal wetland vulnerability and carbon storage, given accelerating and uncertain sea-level rise. We present a case study using the Cohort Marsh Equilibrium Model at the Global Change Research Wetland in Maryland, USA. We used meta-analyses to quantify lab- and sample-level measurement uncertainties for common soil measurements and to develop Bayesian model priors. Reanalysis of previous literature supported predictive relationships between belowground turnover and mean annual temperature, as well as between soil erodibility and suspended sediment concentration that could be transferable to other locations. The model forecasted a likely conversion of low-elevation marsh to open water by the 2060s, accompanied by a decrease in marsh carbon storage capacity. Forecasted uncertainty in elevation was dominated by structural uncertainty in the model, while carbon accumulation rates were more influenced by parameter uncertainty. After 2050, and increasingly as the forecast approached 2100, uncertainty in sea-level rise projections contributed to uncertainty in both forecasts. Forecasts were most sensitive to processes related to organic matter preservation, plant productivity (maximum aboveground biomass and belowground turnover), and organic soil packing density. The soil formed was an organic-rich peat (>70% organic matter according to the data), and model predictions were insensitive to parameters associated with mineral sedimentation. We identify additional field data collection, such as on decomposition trajectories and plant productivity, and data-model coupling of near-term elevation records as the most impactful strategies for reducing uncertainties in future forecasting efforts. Future work can build on this forecasting framework in other locations, using it for adaptive management, identifying appropriate interventions to mitigate wetland loss, and projecting future carbon removal capacity in response to accelerated sea-level rise.

Maryland↗

USGS2025

Missing data in ecology: Syntheses, clarifications, and considerations

In ecology and related sciences, missing data are common and occur in a variety of different contexts. When missing data are not handled properly, subsequent statistical estimates tend to be biased, inefficient, and lack proper confidence interval coverage. Missing data are often grouped into three categories: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR). We review each category and compare their benefits and drawbacks. We review several approaches to handling missing data including complete case analysis, imputation, inverse probability weighting, and data augmentation. We clarify what types of variables should accompany imputation methods and how those variables are influenced by the analysis methods. Additionally, we discuss missing data that lack a formal basis for measurement and hence are fundamentally different from MCAR, MAR, and MNAR missing data. Throughout, we introduce concepts and numeric examples using both simulated data and data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2016 National Wetland Condition Assessment. We conclude by providing five considerations for ecologists and other scientists handling missing data.

Ecological Monographs↗

USGS2025

Mammalian predator co‐occurrence affected by prey and habitat more than competitor presence at multiple time scales

The behavior and abundance of sympatric predators can be affected by a complex dominance hierarchy. The strength of antagonistic interactions in predator communities is difficult to study and remains poorly understood for many predator assemblages. Predators directly and indirectly influence the broader ecosystem, so identifying the relative importance of competition, prey, and habitat in shaping predator interactions has broad conservation and management implications. We investigated space use among five predator species (black bear [ Ursus americanus ], bobcat [ Lynx rufus ], coyote [ Canis latrans ], mountain lion [ Puma concolor ], and gray wolf [ Canis lupus ]) across three temporal scales in northern Idaho, USA. We used camera trap data to test whether potentially subordinate predators spatially avoided dominant predators and how prey availability influenced those relationships. We found few instances of subordinate predators spatially avoiding dominant predators and only at the finest temporal scale of our analyses. Instead, habitat features generally influenced predator space use patterns at coarser scales whereas prey and competitor presence influenced space use patterns at finer scales. Co-occurrence was positively associated between coyotes and bobcats at coarser timescales and between mesopredators and apex predators at finer timescales. Bobcats and mountain lions temporarily delayed the use of sites recently visited by coyotes and black bears, respectively. And all predator species used sites sooner following the detection of a competitor in areas with higher relative abundances of prey (primarily white-tailed deer [ Odocoileus virginianus ]). Our results suggest attraction to shared habitats and prey resources influenced space use in the predator community more than avoidance of competitors. We propose that the effects of interspecific interactions on predator distributions were most evident for mesopredators because their trophic position requires balancing risks and rewards associated with prey, apex predators, and other mesopredators. In addition, relatively high densities of a common prey source likely facilitated the spatial coexistence in this predator community. Our study demonstrates the value of simultaneously assessing multiple interspecific interactions across different spatiotemporal scales to discern relationships within the predator guild.

Idaho↗