A System Reanalysis of the Current Greenhouse Gases Budget of Terrestrial Ecosystems in Russia

Abstract This study synthesizes the budgets of three greenhouse gases (GHG, namely CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O) for Russia over two decades (2000–2009 and 2010–2019) using bottom‐up and top‐down approaches, as part of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes, Phase 2 (RECCAP2). Published estimates of natural sources and sinks of these GHGs in Russia vary widely. Here, bottom‐up estimates are based on eddy covariance measurements, the Integrated Land Information System of Russia (ILIS‐LEA), field data, Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), and regional models. The bottom‐up approach estimated Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) at −0.64 ± 0.17 and −0.57 ± 0.14 Pg C yr −1 , for decades 2000–2009 and 2010–2019, respectively. Top‐down atmospheric inversions provide similar NEE carbon flux estimates with comparable uncertainties at −0.56 ± 0.26 and −0.73 ± 0.27 Pg C yr −1 for the two decades. Differences between these approaches arise from distinct flux components and structural assumptions. ILIS‐LEA indicates a slightly declining carbon sink in 2010–2019, driven by increased disturbances. In contrast, DGVMs suggest a stable carbon sink over both decades but they do not fully simulate the effects of disturbances and recovery. Top‐down inversions reveal an increasing CO 2 sink, suggesting with additional observed constraints on biomass carbon increment that soil and non‐forest biomes absorb more carbon than predicted by DGVMs and ILIS‐LEA models. A Bayesian averaging approach estimates natural ecosystems acting as a GHG sink with a land‐to‐atmosphere flux of −1.55 ± 0.91 and −1.47 ± 0.82 Pg CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 . Accounting for both natural and anthropogenic emissions across the Russian territory shifts the net GHG balance to a source around 1.2 Pg CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2025gb008540
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A System Reanalysis of the Current Greenhouse Gases Budget of Terrestrial Ecosystems in Russia

F. Kraxner, А. Shvidenko, Еugene А. Vaganov, Andrey Krasovskiy et al.
3 citations
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
3.32
article

A System Reanalysis of the Current Greenhouse Gases Budget of Terrestrial Ecosystems in Russia

F. Kraxner, А. Shvidenko, Еugene А. Vaganov, Andrey Krasovskiy, Naveen Chandra, Liudmila Mukhortova, Anatoly Prokushkin, Irina Terentieva, Ana Bastos, Dmitry Belikov, Eric J. Gustafson, Prabir K. Patra, Dmitry Schepaschenko, I. N. Kurganova, Benjamin Poulter, Philippe Ciais, Vadim Mamkin, М. В. Глаголев, В. Н. Коротков, Shamil Maksyutov, Juliya Kurbatova, Ronny Lauerwald, Д. В. Карелин, A. A. Romanovskaya, Н. В. Лукина
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract This study synthesizes the budgets of three greenhouse gases (GHG, namely CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O) for Russia over two decades (2000–2009 and 2010–2019) using bottom‐up and top‐down approaches, as part of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes, Phase 2 (RECCAP2). Published estimates of natural sources and sinks of these GHGs in Russia vary widely. Here, bottom‐up estimates are based on eddy covariance measurements, the Integrated Land Information System of Russia (ILIS‐LEA), field data, Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), and regional models. The bottom‐up approach estimated Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) at −0.64 ± 0.17 and −0.57 ± 0.14 Pg C yr −1 , for decades 2000–2009 and 2010–2019, respectively. Top‐down atmospheric inversions provide similar NEE carbon flux estimates with comparable uncertainties at −0.56 ± 0.26 and −0.73 ± 0.27 Pg C yr −1 for the two decades. Differences between these approaches arise from distinct flux components and structural assumptions. ILIS‐LEA indicates a slightly declining carbon sink in 2010–2019, driven by increased disturbances. In contrast, DGVMs suggest a stable carbon sink over both decades but they do not fully simulate the effects of disturbances and recovery. Top‐down inversions reveal an increasing CO 2 sink, suggesting with additional observed constraints on biomass carbon increment that soil and non‐forest biomes absorb more carbon than predicted by DGVMs and ILIS‐LEA models. A Bayesian averaging approach estimates natural ecosystems acting as a GHG sink with a land‐to‐atmosphere flux of −1.55 ± 0.91 and −1.47 ± 0.82 Pg CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 . Accounting for both natural and anthropogenic emissions across the Russian territory shifts the net GHG balance to a source around 1.2 Pg CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 .

Global Biogeochemical CyclesVol. 39(10)
National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Goddard Space Flight Center (US), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JP), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT), Chiba University (JP), Moscow State Forest University (RU), University of Calgary (CA), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR), Lomonosov Moscow State University (RU), National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP), AgroParisTech (FR), Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Institute of Physical-Chemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science (RU), Northern Research Station (US), Institute of Geography (RU), Institute of Forest Science (RU), Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (FR), Centre for Forest Ecology and Productivity (RU), Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (RU), Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution (RU), Moscow State University (TJ), Sukachev Institute of Forest (RU), Siberian Federal University (RU), Leipzig University (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
3.32
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.