Cited by 89Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols

Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could enhance the terrestrial photosynthesis rate

Open access
Xia, L., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Neely III, R. R.·2016·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could impact the terrestrial carbon cycle by enhancing the carbon sink. With an 8 Tg yr −1 injection of SO 2 to produce a stratospheric aerosol cloud to balance anthropogenic radiative forcing from the Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0 (RCP6.0) scenario, we conducted climate model simulations with the Community Earth System Model – the Community Atmospheric Model 4 fully coupled to tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry (CAM4–chem). During the geoengineering period, as compared to RCP6.0, land-averaged downward visible (300–700 nm) diffuse radiation increased 3.2 W m −2 (11 %). The enhanced diffuse radiation combined with the cooling increased plant photosynthesis by 0.07 ± 0.02 µmol C m −2 s −1 , which could contribute to an additional 3.8 ± 1.1 Gt C yr −1 global gross primary productivity without explicit nutrient limitation. This increase could potentially increase the land carbon sink. Suppressed plant and soil respiration due to the cooling would reduce natural land carbon emission and therefore further enhance the terrestrial carbon sink during the geoengineering period. This potentially beneficial impact of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering would need to be balanced by a large number of potential risks in any future decisions about the implementation of geoengineering.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xia, L., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., & Neely III, R. R.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Xia, L.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2016-02-10
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
1479-1489
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2268746691
Cited by
89
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4
FWCI
12.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Atmospheric chemistry and physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (AGS-1157525, GEO-1240507)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Keywords
solar geoengineering, terrestrial photosynthesis, gross primary productivity, terrestrial carbon sink, diffuse radiation, stratospheric aerosols, RCP6.0, plant respiration, soil respiration, global cooling, geoengineering risks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review