Simulating climatic responses of vegetation production with ecological optimality theories

Zhongmin Hu; Chuan Jin; Siyuan Peng; Yue Yang; Guojiao Yang; Nicholas G. Smith

doi:10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2025.100153

The Innovation Geoscience > 2025 Vol. 3 > No. 3 > 100153

Next Article Previous Article

ARTICLE Open Access

Cite PDF

Simulating climatic responses of vegetation production with ecological optimality theories

1.
Hainan Baoting Tropical Forest Ecosystem Observation and Research Station, School of Ecology, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
2.
Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China
3.
Facility of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
4.
Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock TX 79409, USA

More Information

Corresponding author: huzm@hainanu.edu.cn
Received Date: February 11, 2025

Accepted Date: August 13, 2025

Published Online: August 19, 2025

The Innovation Geoscience 3(3), https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2025.100153 | Cite this article

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

DownLoad: Full size image

PUBLIC SUMMARY

PUBLIC SUMMARY
1. We developed an optimality-based (Opt) model for simulating gross primary productivity (GPP).
  
  The Opt model uses leaf area index (LAI) and climate factors with minimal parameter calibration.
  
  The Opt model captures GPP responses to changes in climatic factors and atmosphere CO₂.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Ecosystem gross primary productivity (GPP) is a fundamental ecosystem function. Accurately predicting variations in GPP in response to environmental changes is a key task for the modelling community. Although sharing the same photosynthesis module, land models show divergent predictions of GPP in response to environmental changes. One reason causing the uncertainties is that key parameters of the photosynthesis module, e.g., stomatal conductance, maximum rate of Rubisco carboxylation (V_cmax), are fixed default values or estimated with empirical functions. To solve this issue, here we integrate three well-accepted optimality theories for plant photosynthesis, i.e., (1) plants maximize carbon gain for a unit of water loss through optimizing stomatal conductance, (2) plants minimize the summed cost of maintaining transpiration and carboxylation through optimizing partial pressure of CO₂ in the intercellular space (C_i), and (3) vegetation allocates resources in a coordinated manner to operate close to the intersection of the light-limited and Rubisco-limited carbon assimilation rates. By bridging these theories, the key parameters of photosynthesis are estimated with analytical equations, without additional empirical constraining functions. Thereafter, an optimality-based model (Opt model) is developed to estimate GPP in this study. The Opt model is driven by leaf area index and easily accessible climate factors, with minimized number of parameters to be calibrated. Comparing with flux tower observations, widely-used GPP models and satellite products, the Opt model shows satisfactory performance in predicting GPP at both site level and global scale. Notably, it captures the sensitivity of GPP in response to climate variabilities and elevated atmospheric CO₂, showing a great potential to be incorporated into land models for predicting ecosystem functioning and its feedback to climate under global changes.
- Optimality theory /
- Eco-evolutionary optimality (EEO) /
- Land model /
- Dynamic vegetation model /
- Gross primary productivity

FullText(HTML)

REFERENCES

[1]	Friedlingstein P., O'Sullivan M., Jones M. W., et al. (2023). Global carbon budget 2023. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15:5301−5369. DOI:10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[2]	Piao S., Wang X., Wang K., et al. (2020). Interannual variation of terrestrial carbon cycle: Issues and perspectives. Glob. Change Biol. 26:300-318. DOI:10.1111/gcb.14884 View in Article Google Scholar
[3]	Hu Z., Dakos V. and Rietkerk M. (2022). Using functional indicators to detect state changes in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37:1036-1045. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2022.07.011 View in Article Google Scholar
[4]	Hu Z., Shi H., Cheng K., et al. (2018). Joint structural and physiological control on the interannual variation in productivity in a temperate grassland: A data-model comparison. Glob. Change Biol. 24:2965−2979. DOI:10.1111/gcb.14274 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[5]	Friedlingstein P., Cox P., Betts R., et al. (2006). Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison. J. Clim. 19:3337−3353. DOI:10.1175/JCLI3800.1 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[6]	Farquhar G. D., von Caemmerer S. and Berry J. A. (1980). A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO₂ assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149:78−90. DOI:10.1007/BF00386231 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[7]	von Caemmerer S. and Farquhar G. D. (1981). Some relationships between the biochemistry of photosynthesis and the gas exchange of leaves. Planta 153:376−387. DOI:10.1007/BF00384257 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[8]	Rogers A., Medlyn B. E., Dukes J. S., et al. (2017). A roadmap for improving the representation of photosynthesis in earth system models. New Phytol. 213:22-42. DOI:10.1111/nph.14283 View in Article Google Scholar
[9]	Li L., Wang Y., Arora V. K., et al. (2018). Evaluating global land surface models in CMIP5: Analysis of ecosystem water- and light-use efficiencies and rainfall partitioning. J. Clim. 31:2995−3008. DOI:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0177.1 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[10]	Medlyn B. E., Zaehle S., De Kauwe M. G., et al. (2015). Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5:528-534. DOI:10.1038/nclimate2621 View in Article Google Scholar
[11]	Harrison S. P., Cramer W., Franklin O., et al. (2021). Eco-evolutionary optimality as a means to improve vegetation and land-surface models. New Phytol. 231:2125−2141. DOI:10.1111/nph.17558 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[12]	Wright Ian J., Reich Peter B. and Westoby M. (2003). Least-cost input mixtures of water and nitrogen for photosynthesis. Am. Nat. 161:98-111. DOI:10.1086/344920 View in Article Google Scholar
[13]	Prentice I. C., Dong N., Gleason S. M., et al. (2014). Balancing the costs of carbon gain and water transport: Testing a new theoretical framework for plant functional ecology. Ecol. Lett. 17:82−91. DOI:10.1111/ele.12211 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[14]	Wang H., Prentice I. C., Keenan T. F., et al. (2017). Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants. Nat. Plants 3:734−741. DOI:10.1038/s41477-017-0006-8 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[15]	Stocker B. D., Wang H., Smith N. G., et al. (2020). P-model v1.0: An optimality-based light use efficiency model for simulating ecosystem gross primary production. Geosci. Model Dev. 13:1545-1581. DOI:10.5194/gmd-13-1545-2020 View in Article Google Scholar
[16]	Kolby Smith W., Reed S. C., Cleveland C. C., et al. (2016). Large divergence of satellite and earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO₂ fertilization. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6:306-310. DOI:10.1038/nclimate2879 View in Article Google Scholar
[17]	Wang S., Zhang Y., Ju W., et al. (2020). Recent global decline of CO₂ fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370:1295−1300. DOI:10.1126/science.abb7772 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[18]	Chen C., Riley W. J., Prentice I. C., et al. (2022). CO₂ fertilization of terrestrial photosynthesis inferred from site to global scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119:e2115627119. DOI:10.1073/pnas.2115627119 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[19]	Katul G., Manzoni S., Palmroth S., et al. (2010). A stomatal optimization theory to describe the effects of atmospheric CO₂ on leaf photosynthesis and transpiration. Ann. Bot. 105:431-442. DOI:10.1093/aob/mcp292 View in Article Google Scholar
[20]	Medlyn B. E., Duursma R. A., Eamus D., et al. (2011). Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17:2134-2144. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02375.x View in Article Google Scholar
[21]	Chen J.L., Reynolds J. F., Harley P. C., et al. (1993). Coordination theory of leaf nitrogen distribution in a canopy. Oecologia 93:63−69. DOI:10.1007/BF00321192 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[22]	Maire V., Martre P., Kattge J., et al. (2012). The coordination of leaf photosynthesis links C and N fluxes in C3 plant species. PLOS ONE 7:e38345. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0038345 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[23]	Givnish T. J. and Vermeij G. J. (1976). Sizes and shapes of liane leaves. Am. Nat. 110:743−778. DOI:10.1086/283101 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[24]	Huber M. L., Perkins R. A., Laesecke A., et al. (2009). New international formulation for the viscosity of H₂O. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 38:101-125. DOI:10.1063/1.3088050 View in Article Google Scholar
[25]	Allen R. G., Pereira L. S., Raes D., et al. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. 300:D05109. View in Article Google Scholar
[26]	Smith N. G., Keenan T. F., Colin Prentice I., et al. (2019). Global photosynthetic capacity is optimized to the environment. Ecol. Lett. 22:506−517. DOI:10.1111/ele.13210 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[27]	Kong D., McVicar T. R., Xiao M., et al. (2022). Phenofit: An R package for extracting vegetation phenology from time series remote sensing. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13:1508-1527. DOI:10.1111/2041-210X.13870 View in Article Google Scholar
[28]	Hu Z., Yu G., Zhou Y., et al. (2009). Partitioning of evapotranspiration and its controls in four grassland ecosystems: Application of a two-source model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149:1410−1420. DOI:10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.03.014 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[29]	Hu Z., Li S., Yu G., et al. (2013). Modeling evapotranspiration by combing a two-source model, a leaf stomatal model, and a light-use efficiency model. J. Hydrol. 501:186-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.006 View in Article Google Scholar
[30]	Papaioannou G., Papanikolaou N. and Retalis D. (1993). Relationships of photosynthetically active radiation and shortwave irradiance. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 48:23-27. DOI:10.1007/BF00864910 View in Article Google Scholar
[31]	Lin W., Yuan H., Dong W., et al. (2023). Reprocessed MODIS version 6.1 leaf area index dataset and its evaluation for land surface and climate modeling. Remote Sens. 15:1780. DOI:10.3390/rs15071780 View in Article Google Scholar
[32]	Jung M., Koirala S., Weber U., et al. (2019). The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes. Sci. Data 6:74. DOI:10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8 View in Article Google Scholar
[33]	Bacour C., Maignan F., MacBean N., et al. (2019). Improving estimates of gross primary productivity by assimilating solar-induced fluorescence satellite retrievals in a terrestrial biosphere model using a process-based SIF Model. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124:3281−3306. DOI:10.1029/2019JG005040 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[34]	Li X. and Xiao J. (2019). Mapping photosynthesis solely from solar-induced vhlorophyll fluorescence: A global, fine-tesolution dataset of gross primary production derived from OCO-2. Remote Sens. 11:2563. DOI:10.3390/rs11212563 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[35]	Running S., Mu Q. and Zhao M. (2021). MODIS/Aqua gross primary productivity 8-day L4 global 500m SIN grid v061. NASA land processes distributed active archive center. DOI:10.5067/MODIS/MYD17A2H.061 View in Article Google Scholar
[36]	Zheng Y., Shen R., Wang Y., et al. (2020). Improved estimate of global gross primary production for reproducing its long-term variation, 1982–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12:2725−2746. DOI:10.5194/essd-12-2725-2020 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[37]	Zhang Y., Xiao X., Wu X., et al. (2017). A global moderate resolution dataset of gross primary production of vegetation for 2000–2016. Sci. Data 4:170165. DOI:10.1038/sdata.2017.165 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[38]	Xiao J., Chevallier F., Gomez C., et al. (2019). Remote sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: A review of advances over 50 years. Remote Sens. Environ. 233:111383. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111383 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[39]	Zhang Y., Joiner J., Alemohammad S. H., et al. (2018). A global spatially contiguous solar-induced fluorescence (CSIF) dataset using neural networks. Biogeosciences 15:5779−5800. DOI:10.5194/bg-15-5779-2018 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[40]	Zhang W., Furtado K., Wu P., et al. (2021). Increasing precipitation variability on daily-to-multiyear time scales in a warmer world. Sci. Adv. 7:eabf8021. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.abf8021 View in Article Google Scholar
[41]	Maurer G. E., Hallmark A. J., Brown R. F., et al. (2020). Sensitivity of primary production to precipitation across the United States. Ecol. Lett. 23:527-536. DOI: 10.1111/ele.13455 View in Article Google Scholar
[42]	Zeng X., Hu Z., Chen A., et al. (2022). The global decline in the sensitivity of vegetation productivity to precipitation from 2001 to 2018. Glob. Change Biol. 28:6823-6833. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16403 View in Article Google Scholar
[43]	Manzoni S., Vico G., Katul G., et al. (2011). Optimizing stomatal conductance for maximum carbon gain under water stress: A meta-analysis across plant functional types and climates. Funct. Ecol. 25:456-467. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01822.x View in Article Google Scholar
[44]	Ainsworth E. A. and Rogers A. (2007). The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising CO₂: Mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30:258-270. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x View in Article Google Scholar
[45]	Liang X., Wang D., Ye Q., et al. (2023). Stomatal responses of terrestrial plants to global change. Nat. Commun. 14:2188. DOI:10.1038/s41467-023-37934-7 View in Article Google Scholar
[46]	Smith Nicholas G., Zhu Q., Keenan Trevor F., et al. (2024). Acclimation of photosynthesis to CO₂ increases ecosystem carbon storage due to leaf nitrogen savings. Glob. Change Biol. 30:e17558. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.17558 View in Article Google Scholar
[47]	Ren Y., Wang H., Harrison S. P., et al. (2025). Incorporating the acclimation of photosynthesis and leaf respiration in the Noah-MP land surface model: Model development and evaluation. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 17:e2024MS004599 DOI:10.1029/2024MS004599 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[48]	Yan Y., Li B., Dechant B., et al. (2025). Plant traits shape global spatiotemporal variations in photosynthetic efficiency. Nat. Plants 11:924-934. DOI:10.1038/s41477-025-01958-2 View in Article Google Scholar
[49]	Collatz G. J., Ribas-Carbo M. and Berry J. A. (1992). Coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model for leaves of C4 plants. Funct. Plant Biol. 19:519-538. DOI:10.1071/PP9920519 View in Article Google Scholar
[50]	Scott H. G. and Smith N. G. (2022). A model of C4 photosynthetic acclimation based on least-cost optimality theory suitable for earth system model incorporation. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 14:e2021MS002470 DOI:10.1029/2021MS002470 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar

Cited by

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Hu Z., Jin C., Peng S., et al. (2025). Simulating climatic responses of vegetation production with ecological optimality theories. The Innovation Geoscience 3:100153. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2025.100153

Hu Z., Jin C., Peng S., et al. (2025). Simulating climatic responses of vegetation production with ecological optimality theories. The Innovation Geoscience 3:100153. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2025.100153

Welcome!

To request copyright permission to republish or share portions of our works, please visit Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC) Marketplace website at marketplace.copyright.com.

Standard PDF

Extended PDF

Figures(8)

Article Metrics

Article views(1547) PDF downloads(650)

Simulating climatic responses of vegetation production with ecological optimality theories

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

PUBLIC SUMMARY

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Welcome!

Share

Article Metrics

Relative Articles

Cited by

Catalog

{{newsColumn.name}}

Journal links

{{newsColumn.name}}

Stay connected

Simulating climatic responses of vegetation production with ecological optimality theories

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

PUBLIC SUMMARY

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Welcome!

Share

Article Metrics

Relative Articles

Cited by

Catalog

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

{{newsColumn.name}}

Journal links

{{newsColumn.name}}

Stay connected