EGU26-14440, updated on 14 Mar 2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-14440
EGU General Assembly 2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Poster | Thursday, 07 May, 08:30–10:15 (CEST), Display time Thursday, 07 May, 08:30–12:30
 
Hall X1, X1.39
Impacts of Shrub Coverage for modeled arctic Ecosystem Carbon Uptake and Storage
Tamara Emmerichs1, Fabrice Lacroix2, Victor Brovkin1, Cheng Gong3, Soenke Zaehle3, Carolina Voigt4,5, Klaus Steenberg Larsen6, Sofie Sjogersten7, and Eeva-Stiina Tuittila8
Tamara Emmerichs et al.
  • 1Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Climate Dynamics, Hamburg, Germany (tamara.emmerichs@gmx.de)
  • 2University of Bern, Institute of Geography, Bern, Switzerland
  • 3Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany
  • 4Permafrost Research Section, Alfred-Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany
  • 5Department of Earth System Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
  • 6University of Copenhagen, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 7School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, UK
  • 8University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Finland

Shrub vegetation has been expanding across Arctic regions in response to climate warming. However, its effects on terrestrial carbon cycling remain poorly understood. Moreover, shrubs are often underrepresented in land surface models. Here, we incorporated two shrub functional types—deciduous and evergreen, which exhibit distinct strategies from trees—into the nutrient-enabled QUINCY model.

The updated model simulates gross primary production (GPP) at site level in broad agreement with recent observations. Model simulations suggest that shrub expansion into needle-leaved forests or grasslands increases GPP by an average of 13% and 40%, respectively. Shrubs also produce substantial above-ground biomass—lower than in needle-leaved forests but higher than in grasslands—with these differences partly driven by both CO₂ and climate effects.

Our analyses reveal a strong model sensitivity to nitrogen availability. While the model applying unlimited nitrogen supply leads to an overestimation of maximum GPP at most study sites, activating the interactive nitrogen cycle suppresses GPP by up to 50% relative to flux-based observational constraints (ABCfluxnet). An additional sensitivity experiment, introducing permafrost nutrient inputs, improves soil carbon estimates but still results in GPP overestimation.

How to cite: Emmerichs, T., Lacroix, F., Brovkin, V., Gong, C., Zaehle, S., Voigt, C., Steenberg Larsen, K., Sjogersten, S., and Tuittila, E.-S.: Impacts of Shrub Coverage for modeled arctic Ecosystem Carbon Uptake and Storage, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-14440, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-14440, 2026.