@article {6294, title = {Extreme drought impacts have been underestimated in grasslands and shrublands globally}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {121}, year = {2024}, pages = {e230988112}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2309881120}, url = {https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2309881120}, author = {M. D. Smith and Wilkins, Kate D. and Holdrege, Martin C. and Wilfahrt, Peter and S.L Collins and Knapp, Alan K. and Sala, Osvaldo E. and Dukes, Jeffrey S. and Phillips, Richard P. and Yahdjian, Laura and Gherardi, Laureano A. and Ohlert, Timothy and Beier, Claus and Fraser, Lauchlan H. and Jentsch, Anke and Loik, Michael E. and Maestre, Fernando T. and Power, Sally A. and Yu, Qiang and Felton, Andrew J. and Munson, Seth M. and Luo, Yiqi and Abdoli, Hamed and Abedi, Mehdi and Alados, Concepci{\'o}n L. and Alberti, Juan and Alon, Moshe and An, Hui and Anacker, Brian and Anderson, Maggie and Auge, Harald and Bachle, Seton and Bahalkeh, Khadijeh and Bahn, Michael and Batbaatar, Amgaa and Bauerle, Taryn and Beard, Karen H. and Behn, Kai and Beil, Ilka and Biancari, Lucio and Blindow, Irmgard and Bondaruk, Viviana Florencia and Borer, Elizabeth T. and Bork, Edward W. and Bruschetti, Carlos Martin and Byrne, Kerry M. and Cahill Jr., James F. and Calvo, Dianela A. and Carbognani, Michele and Cardoni, Augusto and Carlyle, Cameron N. and Castillo-Garcia, Miguel and Chang, Scott X. and Chieppa, Jeff and Cianciaruso, Marcus V. and Cohen, Ofer and Cordeiro, Amanda L. and Cusack, Daniela F. and Dahlke, Sven and Daleo, Pedro and D{\textquoteright}Antonio, Carla M. and Dietterich, Lee H. and S. Doherty, Tim and Dubbert, Maren and Ebeling, Anne and Eisenhauer, Nico and Fischer, Fel{\'\i}cia M. and Forte, T{\textquoteright}ai G. W. and Gebauer, Tobias and Gozalo, Beatriz and Greenville, Aaron C. and Guidoni-Martins, Karlo G. and Hannusch, Heather J. and Vats{\o} Haugum, Siri and Hautier, Yann and Hefting, Mariet and Henry, Hugh A. L. and Hoss, Daniela and Ingrisch, Johannes and Iribarne, Oscar and Isbell, Forest and Johnson, Yari and Jordan, Samuel and Kelly, Eugene F. and Kimmel, Kaitlin and Kreyling, Juergen and Kr{\"o}el-Dulay, Gy{\"o}rgy and Kr{\"o}pfl, Alicia and K{\"u}bert, Angelika and Kulmatiski, Andrew and Lamb, Eric G. and Larsen, Klaus Steenberg and Larson, Julie and Lawson, Jason and Leder, Cintia V. and Linst{\"a}dter, Anja and Liu, Jielin and Liu, Shirong and Lodge, Alexandra G. and Longo, Grisel and Loydi, Alejandro and Luan, Junwei and Curtis Lubbe, Frederick and Macfarlane, Craig and Mackie-Haas, Kathleen and Malyshev, Andrey V. and Maturano-Ruiz, {\'a}n and Merchant, Thomas and Metcalfe, Daniel B. and Mori, Akira S. and Mudongo, Edwin and Newman, Gregory S. and Nielsen, Uffe N. and Nimmo, Dale and Niu, Yujie and Nobre, Paola and O{\textquoteright}Connor, Rory C. and Ogaya, Rom{\`a} and O{\~n}atibia, Gast{\'o}n R. and Orb{\'a}n, Ildik{\'o} and Osborne, Brooke and Otfinowski, Rafael and P{\"a}rtel, Meelis and Pe{\~n}uelas, Josep and Peri, Pablo L. and Peter, Guadalupe and Petraglia, Alessandro and Picon-Cochard, Catherine and Pillar, Val{\'e}rio D. and Pi{\~N}Eiro-Guerra, Juan Manuel and Ploughe, Laura W. and Plowes, Robert M. and Portales-Reyes, Cristy and Prober, Suzanne M. and Pueyo, Yolanda and Reed, Sasha C. and Ritchie, Euan G. and Rodr{\'\i}guez, Ayl{\'e}n and Rogers, William E. and Roscher, Christiane and S{\'a}nchez, Ana M. and Santos, Br{\'a}ulio A. and Scarf{\'o}, Mar{\'\i}a and Seabloom, Eric W. and Shi, Baoku and Souza, Lara and Stampfli, Andreas and Standish, Rachel J. and Sternberg, Marcelo and Sun, Wei and S{\"u}nnemann, Marie and Tedder, Michelle and Thorvaldsen, {\r a}l and Tian, Dashuan and Tielb{\"o}rger, Katja and Valdecantos, Alejandro and van den Brink, Liesbeth and Vandvik, Vigdis and Vankoughnett, Mathew R. and Guri Velle, Liv and Wang, Changhui and Wang, Yi and Wardle, Glenda M. and Werner, Christiane and Wei, Cunzheng and Wiehl, Georg and Williams, Jennifer L. and Wolf, Amelia A. and Zeiter, Michaela and Zhang, Fawei and Zhu, Juntao and Zong, Ning and Zuo, Xiaoan} } @article {6298, title = {Accounting for herbaceous communities in process-based models will advance our understanding of {\textquotedblleft}grassy{\textquotedblright} ecosystems}, journal = {Global Change Biology}, volume = {29}, year = {2023}, pages = {6453 - 6477}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, issn = {1354-1013}, doi = {10.1111/gcb.v29.2310.1111/gcb.16950}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16950}, author = {K.R. Wilcox and Chen, Anping and M.L. Avolio and Butler, Ethan E. and S.L Collins and Fisher, Rosie and Keenan, Trevor and Kiang, Nancy Y. and Alan K. Knapp and Koerner, S.E. and Kueppers, Lara and Liang, Guopeng and Lieungh, Eva and Loik, Michael and Luo, Yiqi and Poulter, Ben and Reich, Peter and Renwick, Katherine and M. D. Smith and Walker, Anthony and Weng, Ensheng and Komatsu, K.J.} } @article {6299, title = {Assessing carbon storage capacity and saturation across six central US grasslands using data{\textendash}model integration}, journal = {Biogeosciences}, volume = {20}, year = {2023}, pages = {2707 - 2725}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.5194/bg-20-2707-2023}, url = {https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/20/2707/2023/}, author = {K.R. Wilcox and S.L Collins and Alan K. Knapp and Pockman, William and Shi, Zheng and M. D. Smith and Luo, Yiqi} } @article {6002, title = {Precipitation manipulation and terrestrial carbon cycling: The roles of treatment magnitude, experimental duration and local climate}, journal = {Global Ecology and Biogeography}, volume = {30}, year = {2021}, pages = {1909 - 1921}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.1111/geb.13356}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13356?af=R}, author = {Wang, Jinsong and Tian, Dashuan and Alan K. Knapp and Chen, Han Y. H. and Luo, Yiqi and Li, Zhaolei and Hou, Enqing and Huang, Xinzhao and Jiang, Lifen and Niu, Shuli}, editor = {Michaletz, Sean} } @article {KNZ002014, title = {Rainfall-manipulation experiments as simulated by terrestrial biosphere models: where do we stand?}, journal = {Global Change Biology}, volume = {26}, year = {2020}, pages = {3336{\textendash}3355}, abstract = {

Changes in rainfall amounts and patterns have been observed and are expected to continue in the near future with potentially significant ecological and societal consequences. Modelling vegetation responses to changes in rainfall is thus crucial to project water and carbon cycles in the future. In this study, we present the results of a new model-data intercomparison project, where we tested the ability of ten terrestrial biosphere models to reproduce observed sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to rainfall changes at ten sites across the globe, in nine of which, rainfall exclusion and/or irrigation experiments had been performed.

The key results are:
(a) Inter-model variation is generally large and model agreement varies with time scales. In severely water limited sites, models only agree on the interannual variability of evapotranspiration and to a smaller extent gross primary productivity. In more mesic sites model agreement for both water and carbon fluxes is typically higher on fine (daily-monthly) time scales and reduces on longer (seasonal-annual) scales.
(b) Models on average overestimate the relationship between ecosystem productivity and mean rainfall amounts across sites (in space) and have a low capacity in reproducing the temporal (interannual) sensitivity of vegetation productivity to annual rainfall at a given site, even though observation uncertainty is comparable to inter-model variability.
(c) Most models reproduced the sign of the observed patterns in productivity changes in rainfall manipulation experiments but had a low capacity in reproducing the observed magnitude of productivity changes. Models better reproduced the observed productivity responses due to rainfall exclusion than addition.
(d) All models attribute ecosystem productivity changes to the intensity of vegetation stress and peak leaf area, whereas the impact of the change in growing season length is negligible. The relative contribution of the peak leaf area and vegetation stress intensity was highly variable among models.

}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.1111/gcb.15024}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.15024}, author = {Paschalis, Athanasios and Fatichi, Simone and Zscheischler, Jakob and Ciais, Philippe and Michael Bahn and Lena R. Boysen and Chang, Jinfeng and De Kauwe, Martin and Estiarte, Marc and Goll, Daniel and Hanson, Paul J. and Harper, Anna B. and Hou, Enqing and Kigel, Jaime and Alan K. Knapp and Larsen, Klaus Steenberg and Li, Wei and Lienert, Sebastian and Luo, Yiqi and Meir, Patrick and Nabel, Julia E.M.S. and Ogaya, Rom{\`a} and Parolari, Anthony J and Peng, Changhui and Pe{\~n}uelas, Josep and Pongratz, Julia and Rambal, Serge and Schmidt, Inger Kappel and Shi, Hao and Sternberg, Marcelo and Tian, Hanqin and Tschumi, Elisabeth and Ukkola, Anna and Vicca, Sara and Viovy, Nicolas and Wang, -Ping and Wang, Zhuonan and Williams, Karina and Wu, Donghai and Zhu, Qiuan} } @article {KNZ002028, title = {Resolving the Dust Bowl paradox of grassland responses to extreme drought}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {117}, year = {2020}, pages = {22249-22255}, abstract = {

During the 1930s Dust Bowl drought in the central United States, species with the C3 photosynthetic pathway expanded throughout C4-dominated grasslands. This widespread increase in C3 grasses during a decade of low rainfall and high temperatures is inconsistent with well-known traits of C3 vs. C4 pathways. Indeed, water use efficiency is generally lower, and photosynthesis is more sensitive to high temperatures in C3 than C4 species, consistent with the predominant distribution of C3 grasslands in cooler environments and at higher latitudes globally. We experimentally imposed extreme drought for 4 y in mixed C3/C4 grasslands in Kansas and Wyoming and, similar to Dust Bowl observations, also documented three- to fivefold increases in C3/C4 biomass ratios. To explain these paradoxical responses, we first analyzed long-term climate records to show that under nominal conditions in the central United States, C4 grasses dominate where precipitation and air temperature are strongly related (warmest months are wettest months). In contrast, C3 grasses flourish where precipitation inputs are less strongly coupled to warm temperatures. We then show that during extreme drought years, precipitation\–temperature relationships weaken, and the proportion of precipitation falling during cooler months increases. This shift in precipitation seasonality provides a mechanism for C3 grasses to respond positively to multiyear drought, resolving the Dust Bowl paradox. Grasslands are globally important biomes and increasingly vulnerable to direct effects of climate extremes. Our findings highlight how extreme drought can indirectly alter precipitation seasonality and shift ecosystem phenology, affecting function in ways not predictable from key traits of C3 and C4 species.

}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.1922030117}, url = {http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922030117}, author = {Alan K. Knapp and Chen, Anping and Griffin-Nolan, Robert J. and Baur, Lauren E. and Carroll, Charles J.W. and Gray, Jesse E. and Hoffman, Ava M. and Li, Xiran and Post, Alison K. and Slette, Ingrid J. and S L Collins and Luo, Yiqi and Smith, Melinda D.} } @article {KNZ001965, title = {Global change effects on plant communities are magnified by time and the number of global change factors imposed}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {116}, year = {2019}, pages = {17867-17873}, abstract = {

Global change drivers (GCDs) are expected to alter community structure and consequently, the services that ecosystems provide. Yet, few experimental investigations have examined effects of GCDs on plant community structure across multiple ecosystem types, and those that do exist present conflicting patterns. In an unprecedented global synthesis of over 100 experiments that manipulated factors linked to GCDs, we show that herbaceous plant community responses depend on experimental manipulation length and number of factors manipulated. We found that plant communities are fairly resistant to experimentally manipulated GCDs in the short term (\<10 y). In contrast, long-term (\≥10 y) experiments show increasing community divergence of treatments from control conditions. Surprisingly, these community responses occurred with similar frequency across the GCD types manipulated in our database. However, community responses were more common when 3 or more GCDs were simultaneously manipulated, suggesting the emergence of additive or synergistic effects of multiple drivers, particularly over long time periods. In half of the cases, GCD manipulations caused a difference in community composition without a corresponding species richness difference, indicating that species reordering or replacement is an important mechanism of community responses to GCDs and should be given greater consideration when examining consequences of GCDs for the biodiversity\–ecosystem function relationship. Human activities are currently driving unparalleled global changes worldwide. Our analyses provide the most comprehensive evidence to date that these human activities may have widespread impacts on plant community composition globally, which will increase in frequency over time and be greater in areas where communities face multiple GCDs simultaneously.

}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.1819027116}, url = {https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/08/14/1819027116}, author = {Kimberly J. Komatsu and M.L. Avolio and Lemoine, Nathan P. and Isbell, Forest and Grman, Emily and Houseman, Gregory R. and Koerner, Sally E. and Johnson, D.S. and K.R. Wilcox and Juha M. Alatalo and Anderson, J.P. and Aerts, R. and S.G. Baer and Baldwin, Andrew H. and Bates, J. and Beierkuhnlein, C. and Belote, R.T. and John M. Blair and Bloor, J.M.G. and Bohlen, P.J. and Edward W. Bork and Elizabeth H. Boughton and W.D. Bowman and Britton, Andrea J. and Cahill, James F. and Chaneton, Enrique J. and Chiariello, N.R. and Cheng, Jimin. and Scott. L. Collins and Cornelissen, J.H.C. and G. Du and Eskelinen, Anu and Firn, Jennifer and Foster, B. and Gough, L. and Gross, K. and Hallett, L.M. and Han, X. and Harmens, H. and Hovenden, M.J. and Jagerbrand, A. and Jentsch, A. and Kern, Christel and Klanderud, Kari and Alan K. Knapp and Kreyling, Juergen and Li, W. and Luo, Yiqi and McCulley, R.L. and McLaren, Jennie R. and Megonigal, Patrick and J.W. Morgan and Onipchenko, Vladimir and Pennings, S.C. and Prev{\'e}y, J.S. and Price, Jodi N. and P.B. Reich and Robinson, Clare H. and Russell, L.F. and Sala, O.E. and Seabloom, E.W. and M.D. Smith and Soudzilovskaia, Nadejda A. and Souza, Lara and K.N. Suding and Suttle, B.K. and Svejcar, T. and Tilman, David and Tognetti, P. and Turkington, R. and White, S. and Xu, Zhuwen and Yahdjian, L. and Yu, Q. and Zhang, Pengfei and Zhang, Yunhai} } @article {KNZ001863, title = {Asymmetric responses of primary productivity to altered precipitation simulated by ecosystem models across three long-term grassland sites}, journal = {Biogeosciences}, volume = {15}, year = {2018}, pages = {3421 - 3437}, abstract = {

Field measurements of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) in temperate grasslands suggest that both positive and negative asymmetric responses to changes in precipitation (P) may occur. Under normal range of precipitation variability, wet years typically result in ANPP gains being larger than ANPP declines in dry years (positive asymmetry), whereas increases in ANPP are lower in magnitude in extreme wet years compared to reductions during extreme drought (negative asymmetry). Whether the current generation of ecosystem models with a coupled carbon\–water system in grasslands are capable of simulating these asymmetric ANPP responses is an unresolved question. In this study, we evaluated the simulated responses of temperate grassland primary productivity to scenarios of altered precipitation with 14 ecosystem models at three sites: Shortgrass steppe (SGS), Konza Prairie (KNZ) and Stubai Valley meadow (STU), spanning a rainfall gradient from dry to moist. We found that (1)\ the spatial slopes derived from modeled primary productivity and precipitation across sites were steeper than the temporal slopes obtained from inter-annual variations, which was consistent with empirical data; (2)\ the asymmetry of the responses of modeled primary productivity under normal inter-annual precipitation variability differed among models, and the mean of the model ensemble suggested a negative asymmetry across the three sites, which was contrary to empirical evidence based on filed observations; (3)\ the mean sensitivity of modeled productivity to rainfall suggested greater negative response with reduced precipitation than positive response to an increased precipitation under extreme conditions at the three sites; and (4)\ gross primary productivity (GPP), net primary productivity (NPP), aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) all showed concave-down nonlinear responses to altered precipitation in all the models, but with different curvatures and mean values. Our results indicated that most models overestimate the negative drought effects and/or underestimate the positive effects of increased precipitation on primary productivity under normal climate conditions, highlighting the need for improving eco-hydrological processes in those models in the future.

}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.5194/bg-15-3421-2018}, url = {https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/3421/2018/}, author = {Wu, Donghai and Ciais, Philippe and Viovy, Nicolas and Alan K. Knapp and K.R. Wilcox and Michael Bahn and M.D. Smith and Vicca, Sara and Fatichi, Simone and Zscheischler, Jakob and He, Yue and Li, Xiangyi and Ito, Akihiko and Arneth, Almut and Harper, Anna and Ukkola, Anna and Paschalis, Athanasios and Poulter, Benjamin and Peng, Changhui and Ricciuto, Daniel and Reinthaler, David and Chen, Guangsheng and Tian, Hanqin and Genet, {\'e}l{\`e}ne and Mao, Jiafu and Ingrisch, Johannes and Nabel, Julia E. S. M. and Pongratz, Julia and Lena R. Boysen and Kautz, Markus and Schmitt, Michael and Meir, Patrick and Zhu, Qiuan and R. Hasibeder and Sippel, Sebastian and Dangal, Shree R. S. and Sitch, Stephen and Shi, Xiaoying and Wang, Yingping and Luo, Yiqi and Liu, Yongwen and Piao, Shilong} } @article {KNZ001811, title = {Asymmetric responses of primary productivity to precipitation extremes: A synthesis of grassland precipitation manipulation experiments}, journal = {Global Change Biology}, volume = {23}, year = {2017}, month = {4376-4385}, abstract = {

Climatic changes are altering Earth\&$\#$39;s hydrological cycle, resulting in altered precipitation amounts, increased interannual variability of precipitation, and more frequent extreme precipitation events. These trends will likely continue into the future, having substantial impacts on net primary productivity (NPP) and associated ecosystem services such as food production and carbon sequestration. Frequently, experimental manipulations of precipitation have linked altered precipitation regimes to changes in NPP. Yet, findings have been diverse and substantial uncertainty still surrounds generalities describing patterns of ecosystem sensitivity to altered precipitation. Additionally, we do not know whether previously observed correlations between NPP and precipitation remain accurate when precipitation changes become extreme. We synthesized results from 83 case studies of experimental precipitation manipulations in grasslands worldwide. We used meta-analytical techniques to search for generalities and asymmetries of aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) responses to both the direction and magnitude of precipitation change. Sensitivity (i.e., productivity response standardized by the amount of precipitation change) of BNPP was similar under precipitation additions and reductions, but ANPP was more sensitive to precipitation additions than reductions; this was especially evident in drier ecosystems. Additionally, overall relationships between the magnitude of productivity responses and the magnitude of precipitation change were saturating in form. The saturating form of this relationship was likely driven by ANPP responses to very extreme precipitation increases, although there were limited studies imposing extreme precipitation change, and there was considerable variation among experiments. This highlights the importance of incorporating gradients of manipulations, ranging from extreme drought to extreme precipitation increases into future climate change experiments. Additionally, policy and land management decisions related to global change scenarios should consider how ANPP and BNPP responses may differ, and that ecosystem responses to extreme events might not be predicted from relationships found under moderate environmental changes.

}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ}, doi = {10.1111/gcb.13706}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13706}, author = {K.R. Wilcox and Shi, Zheng and Gherardi, Laureano A. and Lemoine, Nathan P. and Koerner, Sally E. and Hoover, David L. and Bork, Edward and Byrne, Kerry M. and Cahill, James and Scott. L. Collins and Evans, Sarah and Gilgen, Anna K. and Holub, Petr and Jiang, Lifen and Alan K. Knapp and LeCain, Daniel and Liang, Junyi and Garcia-Palacios, Pablo and Pe{\~n}uelas, Josep and Pockman, William T. and M.D. Smith and Sun, Shanghua and White, Shannon R. and Yahdjian, Laura and Zhu, Kai and Luo, Yiqi} } @article {KNZ001842, title = {Asynchrony among local communities stabilises ecosystem function of metacommunities}, journal = {Ecology Letters}, year = {2017}, abstract = {

Temporal stability of ecosystem functioning increases the predictability and reliability of ecosystem services, and understanding the drivers of stability across spatial scales is important for land management and policy decisions. We used species-level abundance data from 62 plant communities across five continents to assess mechanisms of temporal stability across spatial scales. We assessed how asynchrony (i.e. different units responding dissimilarly through time) of species and local communities stabilised metacommunity ecosystem function. Asynchrony of species increased stability of local communities, and asynchrony among local communities enhanced metacommunity stability by a wide range of magnitudes (1\–315\%); this range was positively correlated with the size of the metacommunity. Additionally, asynchronous responses among local communities were linked with species\’ populations fluctuating asynchronously across space, perhaps stemming from physical and/or competitive differences among local communities. Accordingly, we suggest spatial heterogeneity should be a major focus for maintaining the stability of ecosystem services at larger spatial scales.

}, keywords = {LTER-KNZ, Alpha diversity, alpha variability, beta diversity, Biodiversity, CoRRE data base, patchiness, Plant communities, Primary productivity, species synchrony}, doi = {10.1111/ele.12861}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12861/epdf}, author = {K.R. Wilcox and Tredennick, Andrew T. and Koerner, Sally E. and Grman, Emily and Hallett, Lauren M. and M.L. Avolio and Kimberly J. La Pierre and Houseman, Gregory R. and Isbell, Forest and Johnson, David Samuel and Juha M. Alatalo and Baldwin, Andrew H. and Edward W. Bork and Elizabeth H. Boughton and W.D. Bowman and Britton, Andrea J. and Cahill, James F. and Scott. L. Collins and G. Du and Eskelinen, Anu and Gough, Laura and Jentsch, Anke and Kern, Christel and Klanderud, Kari and Alan K. Knapp and Kreyling, Juergen and Luo, Yiqi and McLaren, Jennie R. and Megonigal, Patrick and Onipchenko, Vladimir and Prev{\'e}y, Janet and Price, Jodi N. and Robinson, Clare H. and Sala, Osvaldo E. and M.D. Smith and Soudzilovskaia, Nadejda A. and Souza, Lara and Tilman, David and White, Shannon R. and Xu, Zhuwen and Yahdjian, Laura and Yu, Qiang and Zhang, Pengfei and Zhang, Yunhai}, editor = {Gurevitch, Jessica} }