logo
    The biosphere theory of V. I. Vernadsky and the Gaia theory of James Lovelock: a comparative analysis of the two theories and traditions.
    PubMed (2000)
    Georgy S. LevitWolfgang E. Krumbein
    James Hutton (1726-1797) regarded Earth as a super-organism and physiology the science to study it. A strong line of evidence for an intimate relationship of biological and abiotic processes on Earth leads from Hutton to the Gaia theory of J. Lovelock. A less known in the West but important approach to the biosphere as a self-regulating system (the biosphere theory) was proposed V.I. Vernadsky (1863-1945). The main concern of this paper revolves around the question: What is the difference between Gaia and the biosphere? To approach the problem of Earth as a super-organism one can use also the biosphere theory of V. N. Beklemishev (1890-1962), who examined the biosphere from a morphological viewpoint.
    Evolutionary Theory
    Citations (3)
    The science of the biosphere
    Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (1985)
    Daniel B. Botkin
    Earth system science
    Citations (0)
    Net primary productivity in the terrestrial biosphere: The application of a global model
    Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (1994)
    Jonathan A. Foley
    DEMETER, a new process‐based model of the terrestrial biosphere, is used to simulate global patterns of net primary productivity (NPP). For the modern climate, NPP and vegetation biomass are simulated to be 62.1 Gt C yr −1 and 800.6 Gt C, respectively. Simulated NPP is found to be highly correlated to field observations (r=0.9343) and the results of the empirically based Miami model (r=0.9587).
    Primary productivity
    Miami
    Citations (124)
    Box Models of the Terrestrial Biosphere
    Cambridge University Press eBooks (2000)
    L. D. Danny Harvey
    We place box models within the hierarchy of terrestrial biosphere models used to assess atmosphere–biosphere carbon fluxes, develop the mathematical formulation of biosphere box models, and examine how gross and net fluxes resulting from land-use changes and CO2 and temperature feedbacks can be separately and simultaneously incorporated into box models. We then summarize insights gained from sensitivity studies using a globally aggregated biosphere model, and close with a proposal for combining the box model approach with some of the simpler regionally disaggregated process models.
    Biosphere model
    Box model
    Citations (6)
    Simulating terrestrial carbon fluxes using the new biosphere model “biosphere model integrating eco‐physiological and mechanistic approaches using satellite data” (BEAMS)
    Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (2005)
    T. SasaiKazuhito IchiiYasushi YamaguchiRamakrishna Nemani
    In this study we present a new biosphere model called the Biosphere model integrating Eco‐physiological And Mechanistic approaches using Satellite data (BEAMS). BEAMS provides a new method of calculating the environmental stress affecting plant growth (Stress). Stress is calculated eco‐physiologically using a photosynthesis model and stomatal conductance formulation, providing a more realistic result than previous models. Stress values are used to estimate Gross Primary Production (GPP) estimates via the light use efficiency concept. We used BEAMS, including our new Stress approach, to investigate global spatial and temporal patterns of net primary production (NPP) and net ecosystem production (NEP). BEAMS was run for the years 1982–2000 using global scale satellite and climate data. Comparison of model results with observational measurements at flux sites reveals that GPP values predicted by BEAMS agree with measured GPP. Obtained Stress values were compared with those of MOD17 and CASA; the three methods produce contrasting spatial patterns. Upon comparing predicted and observed NPP, the pattern of NPP for each plant functional type can be adequately estimated. In terms of trend analysis, NPP increased for the years 1982–2000 in most regions. Different NPP trends were observed in Europe, Russia, and northeast Canada than those proposed by Nemani et al. (2003); we attribute these differences to climate‐related processes. Simulated interannual variations in global NEP are similar to results from inverse modeling. A sensitivity study of obtained NEP shows that the interannual variability in NEP is strongly controlled by air temperature, precipitation, CO 2 , and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation.
    Biosphere model
    Carbon flux
    Citations (67)
    Effect on the Biosphere of Elevated Atmospheric CO 2
    Science (1999)
    Bert BolinJosep G. CanadellBerrien MooreIan NobleWill Steffen
    The report “Net primary production of a forest ecosystem with experimental CO2 by enrichment” by E.H. DeLucia et al. (14 May, p. [1177][1]) provides excellent and much-needed experimental work on the responses of the terrestrial biosphere to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). However, we are concerned about the report's last statement (also appearing in the abstract), which extrapolates measurements of net primary production (NPP) from this one experiment to the world's forests as a whole, suggesting that they could absorb as much as 50% of the projected fossil fuel emissions of CO2 in 2050. This projection gives a misleading, perhaps erroneous, picture of the role of the terrestrial biosphere in the global carbon cycle. First, NPP is not the appropriate measurement to apply when considering the net uptake (or release) of CO2 by the terrestrial biosphere on a biome or larger spatial scale and over several decades. The most appropriate concept is net biome production (NBP) ([1][2]), which includes not only NPP, but also losses of carbon resulting from heterotrophic respiration, fires, insect-induced mortality, logging, and other natural and human-induced disturbances ([2][3]). In contrast to global terrestrial NPP, which is about 60 picograms of carbon per year, global terrestrial NBP is about ± 1 or 2 picograms per year. Second, there is considerable difficulty in extrapolating up in time and space from a single experiment based on a step-change in CO2 concentration over a young, rapidly growing stand of trees, as noted by the authors of the report immediately before the final statement. Third, applying the same methodology for extrapolation as used in this report, we conclude that the world's forests should now be taking up at least 3 picograms of carbon per year of fossil-fuel emissions. This is significantly higher than current estimates of terrestrial carbon sequestration [for example, ([3][4])] and is inconsistent with atmospheric inverse calculations, as well as with estimates of oceanic carbon uptake. In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behavior of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care, especially extrapolations from stand-level experiments or observations. 1. [↵][5]1. J.N. Galloway, 2. J.M. Melillo 1. E.D. Schulze, 2. M. Heimann , in Asian Change in the Context of Global Change, J.N. Galloway, J.M. Melillo, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998), pp. 145-161 (No. 3, IGBP Book Series,. 2. [↵][6]1. IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group , Science 280, 1393 (1998). [OpenUrl][7][Abstract/FREE Full Text][8] 3. [↵][9]1. D.S. Schimel , Global Change Biol. 1, 77 (1995). [OpenUrl][10] # Effect on the Biosphere of Elevated Atmospheric CO2 {#article-title-2} NPP is the difference between total, annually integrated photosynthesis (gross primary production) and plant respiration and therefore represents the rate of carbon uptake from the atmosphere by ecosystems ([1][2]). By assuming that all forests of the world are similar to our young, fast-growing stand of loblolly pine, we attempted to constrain an estimate of the maximum net increment of NPP when the atmosphere contains 560 parts per million of CO2. Our value for forest uptake, 50% of the anticipated CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in the year 2050, indicates that forests will not solve the global warming problem for us. And, as Bolin et al. indicate, actual long-term carbon storage will be much less than NPP, owing to the activity of soil microbes, fires, human land-use changes, and so forth, which act to return CO2 to the atmosphere. 1. 1. W.H. Schlesinger , Biogeochemistry (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1997). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.284.5417.1177 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DIGBP%2BTerrestrial%2BCarbon%2BWorking%2BGroup%26rft.auinit1%253D%2B%26rft.volume%253D280%26rft.issue%253D5368%26rft.spage%253D1393%26rft.epage%253D1394%26rft.atitle%253DCLIMATE%253A%2B%2BThe%2BTerrestrial%2BCarbon%2BCycle%253A%2BImplications%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BKyoto%2BProtocol%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.280.5368.1393%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIyODAvNTM2OC8xMzkzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjU6Ii9zY2kvMjg1LzU0MzUvMTg0OS45LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGlobal%2BChange%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D1%26rft.spage%253D77%26rft.atitle%253DGLOBAL%2BCHANGE%2BBIOL%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx
    Biome
    Terrestrial ecosystem
    Global Change
    Carbon fibers
    Carbon flux
    Citations (3)