EPR-derived structures of flavin radical and iron-sulfur clusters from Methylosinus sporium 5 reductase

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Sol Jeong ◽  
Sugyeong Hong ◽  
Hee Seon Yoo ◽  
Jin Kim ◽  
Yujeong Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Methane Monooxygenase ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Ambient Conditions ◽  
Iron Sulfur Clusters ◽  
Iron Sulfur ◽  
Greenhouse Effects ◽  
Global Carbon ◽  
Significant Attention

Methane monooxygenase (MMO) has attracted significant attention owing to its crucial role in the global carbon cycle; it impedes greenhouse effects by converting methane to methanol under ambient conditions. The...

scholarly journals Amazonian Fire Events Disturbed the Global Carbon Cycle: A Study from 2019 Amazon Wildfire Using Google Earth Engine

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Subhajit Bandopadhyay ◽  
Dany A. Cotrina Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Carbon Sink ◽  
Brazilian Amazon ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Forest Productivity ◽  
Google Earth ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Burned Area ◽  
Google Earth Engine ◽  
Global Carbon

An unprecedented number of wildfire events during 2019 throughout the Brazilian Amazon caught global attention, due to their massive extent and the associated loss in the Amazonian forest—an ecosystem on which the whole world depends. Such devastating wildfires in the Amazon has strongly hampered the global carbon cycle and significantly reduced forest productivity. In this study, we have quantified such loss of forest productivity in terms of gross primary productivity (GPP), applying a comparative approach using Google Earth Engine. A total of 12 wildfire spots have been identified based on the fire’s extension over the Brazilian Amazon, and we quantified the loss in productivity between 2018 and 2019. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) GPP and MODIS burned area satellite imageries, with a revisit time of 8 days and 30 days, respectively, have been used for this study. We have observed that compared to 2018, the number of wildfire events increased during 2019. But such wildfire events did not hamper the natural annual trend of GPP of the Amazonian ecosystem. However, a significant drop in forest productivity in terms of GPP has been observed. Among all 11 observational sites were recorded with GPP loss, ranging from −18.88 gC m−2 yr−1 to −120.11 gC m−2 yr−1, except site number 3. Such drastic loss in GPP indicates that during 2019 fire events, all of these sites acted as carbon sources rather than carbon sink sites, which may hamper the global carbon cycle and terrestrial CO2 fluxes. Therefore, it is assumed that these findings will also fit for the other Amazonian wildfire sites, as well as for the tropical forest ecosystem as a whole. We hope this study will provide a significant contribution to global carbon cycle research, terrestrial ecosystem studies, sustainable forest management, and climate change in contemporary environmental sciences.

Distribution of radiocarbon as a test of global carbon cycle models

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atul K. Jain ◽  
Haroon S. Kheshgi ◽  
Martin I. Hoffert ◽  
Donald J. Wuebbles
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon

scholarly journals The changing global carbon cycle: linking plant-soil carbon dynamics to global consequences

2009 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Stuart Chapin III ◽  
Jack McFarland ◽  
A. David McGuire ◽  
Eugenie S. Euskirchen ◽  
Roger W. Ruess ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Soil Carbon ◽  
Carbon Dynamics ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Soil Carbon Dynamics ◽  
Plant Soil ◽  
Global Carbon

The Global Carbon Cycle

Science ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 241 (4874) ◽  
pp. 1736-1737
Author(s):  
George M. Woodwell
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon

Time-scale dependence of climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for weak perturbations in CMIP5 models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Torres Mendonça ◽  
Julia Pongratz ◽  
Christian Reick
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Time Scales ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Atmospheric Co2 ◽  
Ice Age ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Global Carbon ◽  
Different Time Scales

<p>The increase in atmospheric CO2 driven by anthropogenic emissions is the main radiative forcing causing climate change. But this increase is not only a result from emissions, but also from changes in the global carbon cycle. These changes arise from feedbacks between climate and the carbon cycle that drive CO2 into or out of the atmosphere in addition to the emissions, thereby either accelerating or buffering climate change. Therefore, understanding the contribution of these feedbacks to the global response of the carbon cycle is crucial in advancing climate research. Currently, this contribution is quantified by the α-β-γ framework (Friedlingstein et al., 2003). But this quantification is only valid for a particular perturbation scenario and time period. In contrast, a recently proposed generalization (Rubino et al., 2016) of this framework for weak perturbations quantifies this contribution for all scenarios and at different time scales. </p><p>Thereby, this generalization provides a systematic framework to investigate the response of the global carbon cycle in terms of the climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. In the present work we employ this framework to study these feedbacks and the airborne fraction in different CMIP5 models. We demonstrate (1) that this generalization of the α-β-γ framework consistently describes the linear dynamics of the carbon cycle in the MPI-ESM; and (2) how by this framework the climate-carbon cycle feedbacks and airborne fraction are quantified at different time scales in CMIP5 models. Our analysis shows that, independently of the perturbation scenario, (1) the net climate-carbon cycle feedback is negative at all time scales; (2) the airborne fraction generally decreases for increasing time scales; and (3) the land biogeochemical feedback dominates the model spread in the airborne fraction at all time scales. This last result therefore emphasizes the need to improve our understanding of this particular feedback.</p><p><strong>References:</strong></p><p>P. Friedlingstein, J.-L. Dufresne, P. Cox, and P. Rayner. How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? Tellus B, 55(2):692–700, 2003.</p><p>M. Rubino, D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, C. Allison, P. Rayner, I. Enting, R. Mulvaney, L. Steele, R. Langenfelds, W. Sturges, et al. Low atmospheric CO2 levels during the Little Ice Age due to cooling-induced terrestrial uptake. Nature Geoscience, 9(9):691–694, 2016.</p>

scholarly journals Dynamical prediction of terrestrial ecosystems and the global carbon cycle: A 25-year hindcast experiment

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Ning Zeng ◽  
Jin-Ho Yoon ◽  
Augustin Vintzileos ◽  
G. James Collatz ◽  
Eugenia Kalnay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Terrestrial Ecosystems ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document