<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ESSD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth System Science Data</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESSD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Syst. Sci. Data</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1866-3516</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/essd-12-2517-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Apparent ecosystem carbon turnover time: <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> uncertainties and robust features</article-title><alt-title>Apparent ecosystem carbon turnover time: uncertainties and robust features</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Apparent ecosystem carbon turnover time: uncertainties and robust features}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{N.~Fan et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fan</surname><given-names>Naixin</given-names></name>
          <email>nfan@bgc-jena.mpg.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Koirala</surname><given-names>Sujan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-1986</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Reichstein</surname><given-names>Markus</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Thurner</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2362-5161</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Avitabile</surname><given-names>Valerio</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3646-052X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Santoro</surname><given-names>Maurizio</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3339-6991</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ahrens</surname><given-names>Bernhard</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Weber</surname><given-names>Ulrich</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff5">
          <name><surname>Carvalhais</surname><given-names>Nuno</given-names></name>
          <email>ncarval@bgc-jena.mpg.de</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-1436</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans Knöll Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Gamma Remote Sensing, 3073 Gümligen, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Departamento de Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente, DCEA, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, FCT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Naixin Fan (nfan@bgc-jena.mpg.de) and Nuno Carvalhais (ncarval@bgc-jena.mpg.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>16</day><month>October</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>2517</fpage><lpage>2536</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>28</day><month>November</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>23</day><month>August</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>5</day><month>August</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>22</day><month>January</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Naixin Fan et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020.html">This article is available from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e185">The turnover time of terrestrial ecosystem carbon is an emergent ecosystem property that
quantifies the strength of land surface on the global carbon cycle–climate feedback. However,
observation- and modeling-based estimates of carbon turnover and its response to climate are
still characterized by large uncertainties. In this study, by assessing the apparent whole
ecosystem carbon turnover times (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) as the ratio between carbon stocks and fluxes, we
provide an update of this ecosystem level diagnostic and its associated uncertainties in high
spatial resolution (0.083<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) using multiple, state-of-the-art, observation-based datasets
of soil organic carbon stock (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), vegetation biomass (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and gross primary productivity (GPP). Using this new ensemble of data, we estimated the global
median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>median</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mtext>difference to percentile 25</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>difference to percentile
75</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) when the full soil is considered, in contrast to limiting it to 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
depth. Only considering the top 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of soil carbon in circumpolar regions (assuming
maximum active layer depth is up to 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) yields a global median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">37</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is longer than the previous estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Carvalhais et al., 2014). We show that the difference is mostly attributed to changes in global
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> accounts for approximately 84 % of
the total uncertainty in global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates; GPP also contributes significantly
(15 %), whereas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> contributes only marginally (less than 1 %) to the
total uncertainty. The high uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is reflected in the large range
across state-of-the-art data products, in which full-depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> spans between
3362 and 4792 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The uncertainty is especially high in circumpolar regions with an
uncertainty of 50 % and a low spatial correlation between the different datasets
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) when compared to other regions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). These uncertainties cast a shadow
on current global estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in circumpolar regions, for which further geographical
representativeness and clarification on variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with soil depth are
needed.  Different GPP estimates contribute significantly to the uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> mainly in
semiarid and arid regions, whereas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> causes the uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in
the subtropics and tropics. In spite of the large uncertainties, our findings reveal that the
latitudinal gradients of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are consistent across different datasets and soil depths. The
current results show a strong ensemble agreement on the negative correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
temperature along latitude that is stronger in temperate zones (30–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) than
in the subtropical and tropical zones (30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N).  Additionally, while the
strength of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–precipitation correlation was dependent on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data
source, the latitudinal gradients also agree among different ensemble members. Overall, and
despite the large variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, we identified robust features in the spatial patterns of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that emerge beyond the differences stemming from the data-driven estimates of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and GPP. These robust patterns, and associated
uncertainties, can be used to infer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–climate relationships and for constraining
contemporaneous behavior of<?pagebreak page2518?> Earth
system models (ESMs), which could contribute to uncertainty reductions in future
projections of the carbon cycle–climate feedback. The dataset of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is openly available at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911" ext-link-type="DOI">10.17871/bgitau.201911</ext-link> (Fan et al., 2019).</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e637">Terrestrial ecosystem carbon turnover time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the average time that carbon
atoms spend in terrestrial ecosystems from the initial photosynthetic fixation until respiratory or
non-respiratory loss (Bolin and Rodhe, 1973; Barrett, 2002; Carvalhais et al., 2014). Ecosystem
turnover time is an emergent property that represents the macro-scale turnover rate of terrestrial
carbon that results from different processes such as plant mortality and soil
decomposition. Alongside photosynthetic fixation of carbon, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a critical ecosystem property
that co-determines the terrestrial carbon storage and the terrestrial carbon sink potential. The
magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and its sensitivity to climate change are central to modeling carbon cycle
dynamics. Therefore, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> has been used as a model evaluation diagnostic and to constrain Earth
system model (ESM) simulations of the carbon cycle. These analyses have shown that current ensembles
of ESMs show a large spread in the simulation of soil and vegetation carbon stocks and their spatial
distribution, which are mostly attributed to the differences in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> among ESMs (Friend et al., 2014;
Todd-Brown, 2013, 2014; Wenzel et al., 2014, Carvalhais et al., 2014; Thurner et al.,
2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e675">At large scales, and for ecosystem-level comparisons, model simulations and observations do not
agree in the global distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and its relationship with climate. Previous
observational datasets, covering both lower latitudes and circumpolar regions and used to estimate
global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for comparison with ESM simulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) have shown a generalized tendency of the models towards faster
turnover times of carbon which are more sensitive to temperature when compared to observation-based
estimates (Carvalhais et al., 2014). The variability between the ESMs alone was also substantial,
showing a wide range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from 8.5 to 22.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mean difference of 29 %) leading to
a substantial divergence in global simulated total terrestrial carbon stocks that range from 1101
to 3374 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mean difference of 36 %). The models also exhibit a large discrepancy in
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–temperature and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–precipitation relationships across different latitudes compared
to observations. The difficulty of evaluating the response of soil carbon to climate change is
partly due to the fact that the dynamical observations at relevant timescales, e.g., multi-decadal to
centennial scales, are lacking, and the magnitude of projected change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to climate change is
still poorly constrained (Koven et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e737">The current understanding of the factors that drive changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is unclear due to the confounding
effects of temperature and moisture even though, for instance, it is well perceived that temperature
and water availability are the main climate factors that affect root respiration and microbial
decomposition (Raich and Schlesinger, 1992; Davidson and Janssens, 2006; Jackson et al.,
2017). Therefore, it is difficult to implement the local temperature sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> into carbon
cycle models due to the large discrepancy between the intrinsic and apparent sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to
temperature. As the soil environment and climate are highly heterogeneous in space, the temperature
sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and terrestrial carbon fluxes may be substantially affected by other factors
as spatial scale decreases (Jung et al., 2017). Additional challenges emerge in understanding the
role of climate and other environmental factors in defining vegetation dynamics related to mortality
and recovery trajectories that control the plant-level contribution to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Friend et al., 2014;
Thurner et al., 2016). Large uncertainties in the simulated total carbon stock of soil and
vegetation represent process uncertainty or potentially missing processes that lead to diverse or
even opposite responses of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to changes in climate (Friedlingstein et al.,
2006; Friend et al., 2014).  Thus, it is instrumental to use observation-based
estimations of carbon turnover times and their associated uncertainties in order to constrain the
models and better predict the response of the carbon cycle to climate change.</p>
      <p id="d1e783">On the other hand, the observation-based estimates of carbon turnover times themselves are prone to
uncertainties stemming from the different data sources of different components of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: soil and
vegetation stocks and ecosystem carbon flux. Specifically, estimates of global total carbon stocks
are characterized by large uncertainties because different in situ measurements and upscaling methods are
used to derive total carbon stocks (Batjes, 2016; Hengl et al., 2017; Sanderman et al.,
2017). Alongside recent soil carbon datasets (Tifafi et al., 2018), there are also several different
global vegetation biomass estimates (Thurner et al., 2014; Avitabile et al., 2016; Sassan Saatchi, personal communication,
2011; Santoro et al., 2020) and
gross primary productivity (GPP) datasets (Jung et al., 2017), which may lead to substantial
differences in the global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> distribution and its relationship with climate. Thus, building and
evaluating an observation-based ensemble of global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates derived from different products
is key in quantifying the uncertainties in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–climate relationship.</p>
      <?pagebreak page2519?><p id="d1e815">This study thus aims at developing an ensemble global estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at a spatial resolution of
0.083<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is derived from different observation-based products. Specifically, we will (1) update
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimations with multiple state-of-the-art datasets, (2) quantify the contribution of the
different components of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to the global and local uncertainties, and (3) identify the robust
patterns across the different ensemble members.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e856">The attributes of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> dataset provided in this study and the key external datasets that were
used to estimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are summarized in Table 1. Details for each dataset are described in the
following subsections. Note that all the datasets are harmonized into the same spatial resolution of
0.083<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) using a mass conservative approach (see Sect. S1 in the
Supplement).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Soil organic carbon datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e903">Five different estimates of global soil carbon stock (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were obtained from
independent datasets. The main features of the datasets and the approaches used are briefly
described below:
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>a.</label>
      <p id="d1e919">SoilGrids is an automated soil mapping system that provides consistent spatial
predictions of soil properties and types at the spatial resolution of 250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Hengl et al.,
2017). A global compilation of in situ soil profile measurements is used to produce an automated
soil mapping based on machine learning algorithms. The dataset contains global soil organic carbon
content at soil depths of 0, 5, 15, 30, 60, 100 and 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition, physical and
chemical soil properties such as bulk density and carbon concentration are provided. A total of 158
remote-sensing-based covariates including land cover classes and long-term averaged surface
temperature were used to train the machine learning model at the site level. According to Hengl et
al. (2017), the current version of the dataset explains 68.8 % of the variance in soil carbon
stock compared to a mere 22.9 % in the previous version (Hengl et al.,
2014). However, it has also been recognized that SoilGrids may overestimate carbon stocks due
to high values of bulk soil density (Tifafi et al., 2018). In general, the estimation of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is mainly caused by the geographically biased availability of measured
data especially in the circumpolar regions. Even though in situ measurements had a large spatial
extent and cover most of the continents, the remote regions that are characterized by severe
climate were sampled much less.</p></list-item><list-item><label>b.</label>
      <p id="d1e950">The dataset of soil carbon provided by Sanderman et al. (2017; hereafter Sanderman) used
the same method as SoilGrids but different input covariates.  The main difference between
SoilGrids and Sanderman is that, in addition to topographic, lithological and climatic covariates,
Sanderman also included land use and forest fraction as covariates in the model fitting. The
relative importance analysis based on the random forest method showed that soil depth,
temperature, elevation and topography are the most important predictors of soil carbon, which is
consistent with SoilGrids. Land use types such as grazing and cropland also
contribute significantly to the variance. The Sanderman dataset provides soil carbon stocks for
the soil depths of 0–30, 30–100 and 100–200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The dataset is available at a spatial
resolution of 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item><list-item><label>c.</label>
      <p id="d1e970">The Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD) coordinated soil data from more than 16 000
standardized soil-mapping units worldwide into a global soil dataset (Batjes, 2016). It
combines regional and national soil information to estimate soil properties, and yet reliability
of the data varies due to the different data sources. The database derived from the SOTER soil and
terrain database had the highest reliability (Central and Eastern Europe, the Caribbean,
Latin America, southern and eastern Africa), while the database derived from the Soil Map of the
World (North America, Australia, western Africa and South Asia) had a relatively lower
reliability. The HWSD dataset is available at a spatial resolution of 30 arc seconds, and it
includes soil organic carbon and water storage capacity at topsoil (0–30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and subsoil
(30–100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></list-item><list-item><label>d.</label>
      <p id="d1e990">The Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database (NCSCD) quantifies the soil organic carbon
storage in the northern circumpolar permafrost area (Hugelius et al., 2013). The dataset contains
soil organic carbon content for soil depths of 0–30, 0–100, 100–200 and 200–300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
soil samplings included pedons from published literature, existing datasets and unpublished
material. The data for 200 and 300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> depths were obtained by extrapolating the bulk
density and carbon content values at the deepest available soil depth for a specific pedon. Only
the pedons with the data for at least the first 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were extrapolated to the full soil
depth. The deep soil carbon (100–300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) showed the lowest level of confidence due to
lack of in situ measurements and much lower spatial representativeness.</p></list-item><list-item><label>e.</label>
      <?pagebreak page2520?><p id="d1e1026">The soil carbon stock and properties produced by the LandGIS maps development team
(hereafter LandGIS) were also used in this study (Wheeler and Hengl, 2018). The soil profile
measurements used in the training have a wide geographic coverage in America, Europe, Africa and
Asia. One unique feature of LandGIS is that it includes additional soil profiles in Russia from
the Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute and the Russian Ministry of Agriculture, improving the predictions
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> significantly there. Further, different machine learning methods,
including random forest, gradient boosting and multinomial logistic regression, were used to
upscale the soil profiles to a global gridded dataset. Continuous soil properties were predicted
at six different soil depths: 0, 10, 30, 60, 100 and 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Compared to the SoilGrids
dataset, LandGIS added new remote sensing layers as covariates in the training and used 5 times
more training datasets (360 000 soil profiles compared to 70 000 in SoilGrids).</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Vegetation biomass datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e1056">Four different datasets of biomass were used to produce the total vegetation biomass
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) data on the global scale.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>a.</label>
      <p id="d1e1072">Thurner et al. (2014) estimated the aboveground biomass (AGB) and belowground biomass
(BGB) for Northern Hemisphere boreal and temperate forests based on satellite radar remote sensing
retrievals of growing stock volume (GSV) and field measurements of wood density and biomass
allometry.  The carbon stocks of tree stems were estimated from GSV retrieval of the BIOMASAR
algorithm. The BIOMASAR algorithm uses remote sensing observations from the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument on the
Envisat satellite (Santoro et al., 2015). The remote sensing retrievals are then converted to biomass using information on wood density and allometry. The other tree biomass compartments (BCs) including roots, foliage and branches were
estimated from stem biomass using field measurements of biomass allometry.  The total carbon
content of the vegetation was then derived as the sum of the biomass in different compartments and
converted to carbon mass units using carbon fraction parameters. A comparison between the data and
inventory-based estimates shows good agreement on regional scales in Russia, the United States
and Europe (Thurner et al., 2014). The data from Thurner et al. (2014), at 0.01<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial
resolution and representative for the year 2010, only cover the northern boreal and temperate
forests between 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N latitudes.</p></list-item><list-item><label>b.</label>
      <p id="d1e1103">To accommodate for lower latitudes not covered in the Thurner et al. (2014) data, we used the forest
biomass carbon stocks to cover the tropical regions provided by Saatchi et al. (2011). The data
were derived using lidar, optical and microwave satellite imagery trained with in situ
measurements in 4079 forest inventory plots (Saatchi et al., 2011). Using the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) lidar
observations to sample forest structure, the method applies a power-law functional relationship to
estimate biomass from the lidar-derived Lorey's height of the canopy. This extended sample of
biomass density is then extrapolated over the landscape using MODIS and radar imagery, resulting
in a pantropical AGB map. BGB was estimated as a function of AGB, and the two were summed together
to derive total forest carbon stock at 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial resolution.</p></list-item><list-item><label>c.</label>
      <p id="d1e1115">The GlobBiomass map (Santoro et al., 2018) estimated GSV and AGB density on the global
scale for the year 2010 at 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial resolution. The AGB was derived from GSV using
spatially explicit biomass conversion and expansion factors (BCEFs) obtained from an extensive
dataset of wood density and compartment biomass measurements. GSV was estimated using space-borne
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery (the Advanced Land Observing Satellite's Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar – ALOS PALSAR – and Envisat's ASAR), Landsat-7, ICESat's lidar and auxiliary datasets and utilizing
the BIOMASAR algorithm to relate the SAR backscattered intensity with GSV (Santoro et al., 2018).</p></list-item><list-item><label>d.</label>
      <p id="d1e1127">Avitabile et al. (2016) combined two existing AGB datasets (Saatchi et al., 2011; Baccini
et al., 2012) to produce data for pantropical AGB. These data use a large independent reference
biomass dataset to calibrate and optimally combine the two maps. The data fusion approach is based
on the bias removal and weighted-average of the input maps, which integrates the spatial patterns
of the reference data into the combined data. The resulting data of total AGB stock for the
tropical regions were 9 %–18 % lower than the two reference datasets with distinctive
spatial patterns over large areas.  The combined data from Avitabile et al. (2016) is available at a
spatial resolution of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Soil depth dataset</title>
      <p id="d1e1146">The data for global distribution of soil depth were obtained from the Global Soil Texture and Derived
Water-Holding Capacities database (Webb et al., 2000). The data contain standardized values of
soil depth and texture selected from the values from the same soil type within each continent. The
total soil depth depends on soil texture and water availability, and it is usually deeper than
100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In regions with permafrost, total soil depth can extend beyond 400 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. S1 in the Supplement).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Gross primary productivity datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e1174">The GPP datasets used to calculate ecosystem carbon turnover times were obtained from the FLUXCOM
initiative (<uri>http://fluxcom.org/</uri>, last access: 28 February 2018). In FLUXCOM, the global energy and carbon fluxes are upscaled
from eddy covariance flux measurements using different machine learning approaches with meteorological and Earth observation data (Jung et al., 2017). In this study, we used GPP derived
from the two different FLUXCOM setups based on (1) only remote sensing covariates and (2) both
remote sensing and meteorology forcing (Tramontana et al., 2016; Jung et al., 2020). In this study, we derived the<?pagebreak page2521?> long-term mean annual GPP across different machine learning
methods over the time period from 2001 to 2015.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Climate datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e1189">The high spatial resolution (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) climate dataset WorldClim (Fick and Hijmans, 2017)
was used to investigate the relationship between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and climate. The data included monthly
maximum, minimum, and average temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, vapor pressure, and wind
speed.  The WorldClim data were produced by assimilating 9000–60 000 ground-station measurements
and covariates such as topography, distance to the coast and remote sensing satellite products
including maximum and minimum land surface temperature, as well as cloud cover in model fitting. For
different regions and climate variables, different combinations of covariates were used. The
2-fold cross-validation statistics showed a very high model accuracy for temperature-related
variables (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and a moderately high accuracy for precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.86</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1244">Overview of the data used and produced in this study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.8}[.8]?><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="3.2cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="1.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="1.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="2.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="1.8cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dataset</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Dataset abbreviation<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>used in this paper</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Spatial <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>domain</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Spatial <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>resolution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Depth distribution (cm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Original data<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>format</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Original data source</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="left"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sanderman et al. (2017)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sanderman</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0, 30, 100, 200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://github.com/whrc/Soil-Carbon-Debt/tree/master/SOCS</uri> (last access: 1 June 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SoilGrids</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SoilGrids</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0, 5, 15, 30, 60, 100, 200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://soilgrids.org/</uri> (last access: 5 November 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LandGIS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LandGIS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0, 10, 30, 60, 100, 200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://zenodo.org/record/2536040{#}.XhxHRBf0kUF</uri> (last access: 8 June 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Harmonized World Soil Database</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HWSD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0, 30, 100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Raster</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/</uri> (last access: 5 November 2017)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">The Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">NCSCD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Circumpolar (30–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0, 30, 60, 100, 200, 300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF/<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NetCDF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://bolin.su.se/data/ncscd/</uri> (last access: 5 November 2017)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">WoSIS Soil Profile Database</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WoSIS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">In situ</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0–300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Shape</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://www.isric.org/explore/wosis/accessing-wosis-derived-datasets</uri></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">International Soil Carbon Network</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ISCN</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">In situ</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0–400</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Spreadsheet</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://iscn.fluxdata.org/</uri> (last access: 19 February 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global Soil Texture And Derived Water-Holding Capacities database</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Webb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">ASCII</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://daac.ornl.gov/SOILS/guides/Webb.html</uri> (last access: 20 February 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="left"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global biomass dataset</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Saatchi</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Dataset available through direct correspondence (Saatchi et al., 2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GEOCARBON global<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>forest biomass <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Avitabile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>http://lucid.wur.nl/datasets/high-carbon-ecosystems</uri> (last access: 5 March 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Integrated global<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>biomass dataset</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Saatchi-Thurner</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://www.pnas.org/content/108/24/9899</uri> (last access: 5 January 2018) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <uri>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geb.12125</uri> (last access: 5 January 2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GlobBiomass</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Santoro</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://globbiomass.org/</uri> (last access: 5 February 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="left">GPP </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">FLUXCOM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GPP (driven by remote sensing)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NetCDF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>http://www.fluxcom.org/</uri> (last access: 28 February 2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">FLUXCOM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GPP (driven by remote sensing plus meteorology)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NetCDF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>http://www.fluxcom.org/</uri> (last access: 28 February 2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="left">Climate </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">WorldClim</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mean annual temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Mean annual precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Not applicable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GeoTIFF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>http://www.worldclim.com/version2</uri> (last access: 5 November 2017)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="left"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> database </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BGI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> database</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Terrestrial carbon <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>turnover times</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">100, 200, full depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NetCDF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><uri>https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/geodb/projects/FileDetails.php</uri> (last access: 5 August 2020)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Estimation of ecosystem turnover times</title>
      <p id="d1e1952">As a result of the balance between influx and outflux of carbon, the terrestrial carbon pool can be
approximated to reach the steady-state condition (influx equals outflux) when long timescales are
considered. This simplifies the calculation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to the ratio between the total terrestrial
carbon storage and the influx or the outflux of carbon. The approach is advantageous in representing
the highly heterogeneous intrinsic properties of the terrestrial carbon cycle as an averaged
apparent ecosystem property which is more intuitive to infer large-scale sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to
climate change. Instead of focusing on the heterogeneity of individual compartment turnover times, we
show the change in the carbon cycle on the ecosystem level using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as an emergent diagnostic
property. The total land carbon storage can be estimated by summing soil carbon stocks derived from
extrapolation and vegetation biomass. Assuming a steady state in which the total efflux (autotrophic
and heterotrophic respiration, fire, etc.)  equals the influx (GPP), then <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be calculated as
the ratio between carbon stock and influx:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M128" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">GPP</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the total soil and vegetation carbon
stocks, respectively, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">GPP</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total influx to the ecosystem. An ensemble of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates
is generated by combining three soil carbon stocks at three different soil depths (1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, full soil depth), four vegetation biomass products, and 24 GPP values resulting in an
ensemble with 864 members.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Estimation of global vegetation biomass stock</title>
      <?pagebreak page2523?><p id="d1e2076">Two different corrections had to be addressed in order to assess the whole vegetation carbon stock
from current observation-based products. First, the aboveground biomass datasets only consider the
biomass within woody vegetation (mostly trees), while the biomass of herbaceous vegetation is
missing. To account for herbaceous biomass, we used a previously developed method in which the live
vegetation fraction is assumed to have a mean turnover time of 1 yr and a uniform distribution
of respiratory costs of carbon (Carvalhais et al., 2014). The carbon in herbaceous vegetation can
then be expressed as a function of GPP:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M135" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">GPP</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the carbon stock of the herbaceous vegetation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">GPP</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the gross
primary productivity from FLUXCOM, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is respiration cost of carbon (0.25–0.75), and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of a grid cell covered by herbaceous vegetation, which was obtained
from the SYNMAP database (Jung et al., 2006).</p>
      <p id="d1e2151">Second, two of the vegetation biomass datasets (GlobBiomass and Avitabile; see Table 1) do not
include BGB. For consistency across all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> datasets, we estimated the BGB using a
previously developed empirical relationship (Saatchi et al., 2011) between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">AGB</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">BGB</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M143" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">BGB</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.489</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">AGB</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.89</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Extrapolation of soil datasets</title>
      <p id="d1e2208">We used observed soil profiles and multiple empirical models to extrapolate soil carbon stock to
full soil depth (Fig. S1 and Table S1 in the Supplement). This approach is necessary to obtain the
accumulated carbon stock from the surface to full soil depth because the soil datasets only extend up to
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below the surface. However, a large amount of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is stored below
this depth, especially in peatland regions where soil carbon content can be substantially higher in
deeper soil layers (Hugelius et al., 2013). To estimate the total carbon storage in the land
ecosystem, different empirical mathematical models were used (Table S1 in the Supplement). The
covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES) method, which is based on an evolutionary algorithm that uses the pool of stochastically
generated parameters of a model as the parents for the next generation (Hansen et al., 2001), was used to optimize parameters of
the models.</p>
      <p id="d1e2230">Extrapolation using empirical numerical models may cause arbitrary bias and higher uncertainty if
the models are not appropriately chosen. Here we used the in situ observational data from the World
Soil Information Service (WOSIS) (Batjes et al., 2020) and the International Soil Carbon Network
(ISCN) (Nave et al., 2017) to select the ensemble of the models that could best simulate soil carbon
stocks at full depth. We used a global dataset of soil depth (Webb, 2000) as the maximum soil depth
to which we extrapolated. The approach fit each empirical model against cumulative
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with all data points and then predicted the cumulative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
at full soil depth for each soil profile independently. The ability of a particular empirical model
or combination of models was then evaluated by comparing the predictions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
at full depth against the observations (see Sect. S3.2 in the Supplement). This procedure was
applied to the two different in situ datasets: WOSIS, which covers most of the biomes, and ISCN, which
has more coverage in circumpolar regions. Finally, after comparing different model averaging methods
(see Table S2 in the Supplement), we chose two model ensembles that could best represent circumpolar and
non-circumpolar regions based on observational datasets. The performance of the chosen
ensembles is synthesized in Figs. S3 and S4 in the Supplement.  Finally, each model ensemble is
applied to extrapolate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to full depth in corresponding regions (see Sect. S3 in
the Supplement).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Uncertainty estimation</title>
      <p id="d1e2285">To estimate the sources of uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, we performed an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
on the different variables (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and GPP). The ANOVA
provides the sum of squares of each variable and the total sum of squares of all variables. The
contribution of each variable (data from different sources) to the total uncertainty can then be
calculated as follows:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M154" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">SS</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">SS</mml:mi><mml:mtext>total</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the relative contribution of uncertainty from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th variable, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">SS</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
sum of the square of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th variable, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">SS</mml:mi><mml:mtext>total</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total sum of the square of all
variables. Note that the uncertainty was quantified in two domains:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2404">grid cell – the relative contributions of different variables to uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were calculated independently for each grid cell;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2415">global – the same method was applied to the estimate of the global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which is calculated using the global total carbon stocks in vegetation and
soil and GPP.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>The analysis of zonal correlations</title>
      <p id="d1e2434">The local correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and climate across latitudes was obtained by using a zonal
moving window approach in which the Pearson partial correlations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were
calculated using a 360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (longitudinal span) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (latitudinal span) moving
window. This approach allowed for the assessment of the correlation strength between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and each
climate parameter. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values below the local 1st percentile and above the 99th
percentile were removed in each moving window to avoid the effect of potential outliers in the
correlations with climate. In order to investigate the effect of latitudinal span, we chose
different band sizes of 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 2.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and performed the correlation analysis
in the same manner for each selection.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page2524?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>The global carbon stock</title>
      <p id="d1e2549">Table 2 summarizes the estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and GPP. Globally,
estimates of soil carbon stocks within the top 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of soil are 2863, 3969 and
3710 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the datasets of Sanderman, SoilGrids and LandGIS, respectively (bulk density
corrected; see Sect. S2 in the Supplement). The significant differences among different datasets
indicate a high uncertainty in the current estimation of global soil carbon storage. The extrapolation
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the full soil depth (FD) shows that approximately 18 % of soil
carbon is stored below the depth of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.  Compared to the previous generation of HWSD
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data (available only for top 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the current state-of-the-art
datasets show significantly higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within the top 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 2). On
the other hand, the current datasets of vegetation biomass show global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges
from 392 to 437 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and substantially lower relative uncertainty than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The estimation of the uncertainty that is derived from different GPP members
shows a range of 100 to 123 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10th percentile to 90th percentile) from different
products. Note that the GPP members are different realizations from FLUXCOM and encompass a wide
range of sources of uncertainty such as different climate forcing, use of remotely sensed data and
machine learning methods (see Sect. 2.4). Overall, the results show that the differences in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates are substantially larger than the differences in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and GPP datasets.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e2712">Estimates of soil organic carbon stocks (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), vegetation biomass
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and GPP (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Carbon stock</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">Non-circumpolar </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Circumpolar </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">Global </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0–1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0–2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0–FD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0–1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0–2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0–FD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0–1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0–2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0–FD</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sanderman</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1218</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1867</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2158</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">570</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">996</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1204</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1788</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2863</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">3362</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SoilGrids</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1463</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2404</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3145</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">925</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1566</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1647</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2388</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">3969</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">4792</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LandGIS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1331</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2139</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2731</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">847</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1570</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2061</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2179</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">3710</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">4792</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HWSD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">795</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">640</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1435</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">n/a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NCSCD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">639</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">981</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">639</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">981</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">n/a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1202</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2136</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2678</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">724</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1278</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1637</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1686</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2881</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">4316</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1275</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2139</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2731</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">640</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1281</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1647</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1788</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">3286</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">4792</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Saatchi</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">357 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">48 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">407 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Avitabile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">368 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">35 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">404 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Saatchi-Thurner</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">398 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">38 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">437 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Santoro</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">354 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">37 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">392 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">369 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">40 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">410 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">363 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">38 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">405 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col10">GPP </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">104 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1"> 6 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">110 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">100 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1"> 7 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">107 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1"> 92 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1"> 5 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">100 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">116 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1"> 8 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col10" align="center">123 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e2748">n/a: not applicable</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>The spatial distribution of soil carbon stocks</title>
      <p id="d1e3304">A significant amount of soil organic carbon is stored in high-latitude terrestrial ecosystems,
especially in the permafrost regions (Hugelius et al., 2013). However, in comparison with low
latitudes, the uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distribution and storage in high latitudes
are potentially higher due to fewer available observations of soil profiles. We therefore divided
the global soil carbon into the non-circumpolar (Fig. 1) and the circumpolar (Fig. 2) regions based
on the northern permafrost region map of the NCSCD. The results show that the mean value and range
(maximum–minimum) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in non-circumpolar regions (Table 2) in the top
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are 2136 and 537 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and in the circumpolar regions within the
top 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are 1278  and 574 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e3364">Spatial distributions of soil carbon storage at 0–100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the non-circumpolar
regions. The total amount of carbon stock is shown in the bottom of each diagonal panel. The
upper off-diagonal panels show the ratios between each pair of datasets (column/row). The bottom
off-diagonal panels show the density plots and major axis regression line between each pair of
datasets (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: slope, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: intercept, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: correlation coefficient). The ranges of both of the
color bars approximately span between the 1st and the 99th percentiles of the data. Hereafter,
all figures comparing different spatial maps include the information in a similar
manner.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3404">The same as Fig. 1 except for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 0–200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> soil depth and in the
circumpolar regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3433">We used in situ observed soil profiles (Fig. S1 in the Supplement) and multiple empirical models to
select an ensemble of models to extrapolate soil carbon stock to full soil depth (Fig. S2 and
Table S1 in the Supplement). It was apparent that a unique ensemble would be limited to represent
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> profiles globally, resulting in two different model ensembles being
selected to represent the soil vertical distribution: one for the circumpolar regions, and another
for non-circumpolar regions. In general, the results show good model performances for predicting in
situ soil carbon stocks up to full soil depth, although non-circumpolar regions (Fig. S3 in the
Supplement) show a higher model performance than that in circumpolar regions (Fig. S4 in the
Supplement). The global estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to full soil depth results in a higher
mean value of 2678 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in non-circumpolar regions and 1637 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in circumpolar
regions. Our results show that there are approximately 500 and 400 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of carbon stock stored
in the deep soil layer below 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in non-circumpolar and circumpolar regions, respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e3491">The spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is more consistent across datasets in the
non-circumpolar regions than in the circumpolar regions (Fig. 1). The Pearson correlation coefficients
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) between each pair of datasets in the non-circumpolar regions are generally higher than in the
circumpolar regions.  Our results show a moderate agreement among the datasets in the spatial
distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> globally (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). However, there are significant
differences in the spatial patterns between the HWSD and each dataset (Fig. 1) as the correlation
coefficients are all below 0.3. In addition, there is a 2-fold lower carbon storage in the HWSD than
the other datasets. Ratios between the total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the top 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 1, upper off diagonal plots) show that LandGIS, SoilGrids and Sanderman are consistent in
temperate regions but show poor agreement in the tropical and the boreal regions. The comparison
also shows that the gradient in carbon stocks between Europe and the lower latitudes diminished in
the HWSD soil map. In addition, the spatial distribution and the amount of carbon stocks in insular
Southeast Asia are significantly different in the HWSD.</p>
      <p id="d1e3555">Greater dissimilarities of spatial patterns across the datasets in the circumpolar regions are shown in
Fig. 2. We included the NCSCD dataset which specifically focuses on the circumpolar regions. The
spatial correlations between each pair of the four datasets show low correlation values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) which range from 0.2
to 0.5. In contrast to the non-circumpolar regions, the high spatial dissimilarity in circumpolar
regions indicates higher uncertainty regarding the estimation of total carbon storage. However, there
is no evidence on which dataset is more credible in terms of total carbon storage and spatial
pattern. The large differences are possibly due to fewer observational soil profiles in the northern
high-latitude regions, which are crucial in the model training process (Hugelius et al., 2013; Hengl
et al., 2017).</p>
      <?pagebreak page2525?><p id="d1e3565">The comparison between all datasets shows good agreement in the vertical
structure of terrestrial carbon stocks. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the top 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
about half of the total terrestrial carbon and 80 % of the top 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> regardless of region or data source. For the non-circumpolar
regions, all the datasets show significantly higher carbon storage in the top
1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than that in the HWSD while showing less divergence of carbon storage
among these three datasets (Table 2). In general, the current datasets show a
similar vertical distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with consistent values and
ratios between 1 and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> soil. The extrapolation results indicate that about
20 % of carbon is stored below 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the non-circumpolar regions. For the
circumpolar regions, the four datasets show a clear trend that the difference
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases with soil depth, as shown in Table 2. The difference
between the top 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> among datasets has a higher difference than
that of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, the ratio between storage in 1 and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is similar
across all datasets.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>The spatial distribution of vegetation</title>
      <p id="d1e3697">Different from the spatial distribution of soil carbon, most vegetation carbon is stored in the
tropics, whereas much less carbon resides in the higher latitudes. In fact, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
in the circumpolar regions is only 10 % of that in the non-circumpolar regions (Table 2). In
comparison with soil carbon, the results show higher consistency and convergence in global estimates
of carbon stock among the four global vegetation datasets (Fig. 3). Our results show that the global
vegetation carbon stock is 10 % to 25 % of the global soil carbon stock depending on the
soil depth considered. The significant spatial correlations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) between each
of the estimates indicate a consistent global spatial distribution of vegetation across the
different data sources. However, the results show more heterogeneity in the regional distribution of
vegetation biomass and uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Specifically, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
arid and cold regions has higher relative uncertainty than that in the moist and hot regions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3759">The same as Fig. 1 but for vegetation carbon stocks. The total vegetation carbon stock is
calculated as the sum of aboveground (AGB), belowground (BGB) and herbaceous biomass. For
consistency, only the grid cells where all four maps have values are included. Therefore, the
total amounts in the diagonal panels differ slightly from those in Table 2.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3768">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> consists of three components including AGB, BGB and herbaceous
biomass. The herbaceous biomass is estimated from mean annual GPP (see Sect. 3.2; Carvalhais et al.,
2014) and globally represents 5 % of the total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and less than 1 % of
the total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, indicating the minor role of herbaceous biomass in affecting the
global estimates and the spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The comparison among the four vegetation
datasets shows a mean of 410 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a spread of 11 % across
the different datasets and a consistent spatial distribution across the different sources. Locally
these differences can be higher, as observed in the relatively higher level of disagreement in
sparsely vegetated arid regions and some cold regions (Fig. 3, upper off-diagonal panels).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>The spatial distribution of GPP</title>
      <p id="d1e3839">The global spatial distribution of GPP is similar to that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e., high in
the tropical regions and low in the higher latitudes (Fig. 4). The GPP datasets show high
consistency in both the spatial patterns and global values. The spread in GPP estimates is higher
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in arid and polar regions than the other regions (Fig. 4, upper off-diagonal
plots). Although the differences among different vegetation and GPP estimations, in general, are not
as high as in soil carbon, the regionally high uncertainties can be significant.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3868">Spatial distributions of GPP and its uncertainty. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the spatial
distribution of mean annual GPP, and panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows the relative uncertainties (calculated as a
ratio of interquartile range to mean). The ranges of both the color bars approximately span between
the 1st and the 99th percentiles of the data.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page2526?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS5">
  <label>4.5</label><title>The ecosystem carbon turnover times and associated uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e3892">The ecosystem turnover time and its uncertainty were estimated using different combinations of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and GPP data. We calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> using full soil
depth, which results in a global estimate of 43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and ranges from 36 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (25th
percentiles) to 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (75th percentiles). The uncertainty in the global estimate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
is mainly contributed by soil (84 %) and GPP (15 %), whereas vegetation contributes only
marginally (less than 1 %). In addition, we derived a global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 37 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and ranges
from 31 to 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by assuming the maximum active layer thickness to be the full soil depth in
the circumpolar regions instead of using only 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as was done in the
previous study (Carvalhais et al., 2014). The incorporation of deep soil in the circumpolar regions
increased the global mean value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and uncertainties in the estimations of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as well. The global spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 5) shows a large heterogeneity which
ranges from 7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (1st percentile) in the tropics to over 1452 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (99th
percentile) in northern high latitudes. The results show a U-shaped distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> along
latitudes in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increases by nearly 3 orders of magnitude from low to high latitudes
(Fig. 7a).  Fig. 5b shows the map of relative uncertainty that is derived from different
datasets. The higher relative uncertainty indicates more spread among the datasets used to estimate
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Our result shows that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates at higher latitudes, especially in circumpolar
regions, have higher uncertainties than those at lower latitudes. We found several regions with large
spreads in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> among the datasets including northeast Canada, central Russia and central
Australia where the relative uncertainties can span beyond 100 %.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e4082">Spatial distribution of ecosystem turnover times. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows spatial distribution
of turnover times, and panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows the relative uncertainty (calculated as a ratio of
interquartile range / mean). The range of color bar in <bold>(a)</bold> approximately spans between
the 1st and the 99th percentiles of the data, and the one in <bold>(b)</bold> spans between the
1st and 90th percentiles.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e4105">The sources of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainty. The contribution of different sources of soil (at full
soil depth), vegetation and GPP data to the uncertainty in turnover time. The green color
indicates the regions where the uncertainty is dominated by GPP, red by soil carbon and blue by
vegetation carbon. Soil, vegetation and GPP dominate 64.8 %, 32.4 % and 2.7 % of land
area in the uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS6">
  <label>4.6</label><title>The zonal pattern of turnover times</title>
      <?pagebreak page2528?><p id="d1e4136">The latitudinal distributions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be best represented by a second-degree polynomial
function (Fig. 7b). After fitting the data of all ensemble members, the rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> change with
latitude can be obtained by taking the first derivative of the fitted polynomial function. We found
that the rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> change with latitude has very consistent zonal patterns for different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
ensemble members from different data sources (Fig. 7c). The result shows a consensus in the change
in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with latitude of different datasets. We also found that the zonal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> gradients were
not significantly (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) different from each other for different selections of soil depth,
indicating that soil depth has no significant effect on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> gradient along latitude. It is worth
noting that there is a significant difference in the zonal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> gradient between the Northern Hemisphere and
Southern Hemisphere (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increases faster from low to high latitudes in
northern latitudes than in the southern latitudes. The results show a high confidence in the zonal
distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and that the difference across datasets does not affect the robustness of the
pattern.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e4237"><bold>(a)</bold> The zonal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(b)</bold> Second-degree polynomial fit
to the zonal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(c)</bold> Zonal rate of changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with latitude
(calculated as the first derivative of the polynomial function). Solid lines represent the mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for different soil depths (1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, green; 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, red; full depth, purple), and
dashed lines in the corresponding colors are the interquartile range. The polynomial function is
fitted independently for the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. The latitude that divides the
Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere is located at 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S where there is a local maximum of
zonal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in <bold>(a)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS7">
  <label>4.7</label><title>The zonal correlation between turnover time and climate</title>
      <p id="d1e4326">The correlations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature and precipitation are analyzed for all the ensemble
members on the global scale (see Sect. 3.5). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlation (Fig. 8a) is the strongest
in northern middle to high latitudes between 25 and 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, and it decreases
rapidly from 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N to the Equator. In the Southern Hemisphere, it increases until
40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, albeit with a weaker gradient than in the Northern Hemisphere. The uncertainties due
to differences in the ensemble members (shown by the shaded area) are higher in the transition between
the temperate and Arctic regions (50 to 70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N), as well as between tropical humid
and semiarid regions (20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S). Similar to the contribution of different
sources to global uncertainty, the spread in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlation is mostly due to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, whereas GPP only affects the zonal correlation to a limited extent
(Fig. 8c).  However, we find that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> zonal correlation varies negligibly due to data
source and soil depth. All ensemble members agree that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlation is negative with
stronger associations in cold regions than in warm regions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e4461">Correlation between zonal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean annual temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean annual precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> are colored according to different soil depth (1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
green; 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, red; full soil depth, blue) with shaded areas being the interquartile range. Panels
<bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(e)</bold> are colored according to different soil sources. Panels <bold>(c)</bold> and
<bold>(f)</bold> are colored according to different GPP products of different forcing (remote sensing only and
remote sensing plus meteorology). The correlations are consistent across the different latitudinal
span widths considered (see Sect. 3.5) and hence are not shown here.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-2517-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4534">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlation, in general, has larger variability across latitude and a higher
uncertainty related to differences in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 8e). Contrary to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
relationship, the uncertainty of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlations from both different data sources and
soil depths is smaller in the tropics than at high latitudes. Negative correlations dominate the
high latitudes between 20 and 50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and between 20 and 40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S. On
the other hand, stronger positive correlations prevail in the tropics. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlation
changes the direction from negative in the temperate zone to positive in the tropics, indicating the
role of moisture availability in transitions from arid to humid regions. We also find that the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> relationship does not change with different soil depths (Fig. S11 in the Supplement).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <?pagebreak page2530?><p id="d1e4648">The accurate estimation of terrestrial carbon storage and turnover time are essential for
understanding carbon cycle–climate feedback (Saatchi et al., 2011; Jobbágy et al., 2000). The
present analysis benchmarks carbon storage in soil, vegetation and GPP fluxes from multiple,
state-of-the-art, observation-based datasets on a global scale and provides an estimate of the total
carbon stock but also estimates of its vertical distribution and spatial variability. In this
section, we will discuss the robustness of the current state-of-the-art estimation on global
terrestrial carbon turnover times resulting from the different stock and flux components of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
as well as the robustness of its covariation with climate. We first show the variation of the spatial and
vertical distribution of carbon stock in different regions and the possible reason for the
difference, and we then discuss the robustness of zonal distribution of turnover times and zonal
changing rates across different datasets. Finally, we focus on the sensitivity of turnover times to
climate and potential implications.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Estimation of global soil carbon stocks</title>
      <p id="d1e4665">We found that there is a significant difference across the current soil carbon datasets in both
circumpolar and non-circumpolar regions (Figs. 1 and 2). The results show that the uncertainty of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimations in the circumpolar regions (52 %) is much larger than that in
the non-circumpolar regions (37 %). The spatial patterns of total ecosystem
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> among the soil datasets are more consistent in the non-circumpolar regions,
indicating a higher confidence in the current estimation of soil carbon stock in these regions. In
contrast to the non-circumpolar regions, there is lower confidence in the circumpolar regions in
estimating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the fact that there is a low spatial correlation across datasets
(Fig. 1). The difference can be caused by a variety of reasons: for example, (i) as an important input to
the machine learning methods, in situ soil profiles are very important factors that influence the
final results of the upscaling and, using different training datasets, can lead to relevant
differences in outputs, and (ii) the sparse coverage of soil profiles in the circumpolar regions may
cause the large divergence in the northern circumpolar region. A major difference in the Sanderman
soil dataset compared to the other two soil datasets (SoilGrids and LandGIS) is that here the direct
target of upscaling was the soil carbon stock, while in the other two datasets, the targets were each
individual component used to calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (carbon density, bulk density and
percentage of coarse fragments) which were predicted individually. Additional discrepancies may
also be associated with the differences in climatic and other input covariates used in the upscaling
which may yield a different estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Sect. 2.1).</p>
      <p id="d1e4723">The estimation of a whole ecosystem turnover time is dependent on an estimate of soil carbon stock
up to full soil depth. Here, we rely on the available global datasets to follow an ensemble approach
for predicting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at full depth that selects models with a minimum distance
between prediction and observations by using in situ soil profiles (see Sect. S3 in the
Supplement). The final results depend on the information from the global soil datasets and also on
the characteristics of the empirical models. Recent studies have shown the advantage of
convolutional neural networks, in comparison to random forest approaches (Hengl et al., 2017;
Wheeler et al., 2018), for more robust predictions of soil organic carbon (SOC) with depth (Wadoux
et al., 2019; Padarian et al., 2019), which could improve the geographical representation of SOC
with depth, although random forest approaches already tend to provide unbiased estimates. Overall,
the extrapolation provides insights into the carbon storage vertical distribution in deeper soil
layers globally, showing that there is approximately 18 % of carbon stored below 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
globally and over 20 % of carbon stored below 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the circumpolar<?pagebreak page2532?> regions. This
results from the fact that, in contrast to the non-circumpolar regions, the circumpolar
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> does not have a decreasing trend up to 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of soil depth (Fig. S1 in
the Supplement), which indicates that there is a significant amount of carbon stored in deep soil and
emphasizes the perspective that deep soil turnover is a key aspect of the global carbon cycle still
poorly understood (Todd-Brown et al., 2013).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Consistency in vegetation carbon stocks estimations</title>
      <p id="d1e4780">Compared to soil carbon, the higher level of consistency in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates
indicates the stronger agreement on the current estimations in the aboveground carbon
components. We show that due to much lower uncertainties in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>veg</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates, the
effect of vegetation on the global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates is minor regardless of which soil depth is used
(Table S3).  Although the contribution of vegetation to the uncertainties in global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates
is less than 2 %, our results show that, locally, vegetation can be the major factor that causes
the difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates. As shown in Fig. S10 in the Supplement, vegetation dominates the
uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in part of the tropics and part of the temperate region in Southeast Asia
which in total account for 7 % of the global land area if only 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used to estimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The land area where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainties are
dominated by vegetation carbon stocks decreases to 3 % and 1 %, respectively, when
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and full soil depths is considered.  Although our results
indicate that vegetation plays a minor role in the global estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, it is an important
factor that can largely affect local patterns of the distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Differences in global GPP fluxes</title>
      <p id="d1e4909">The contribution of vegetation and GPP to the uncertainties in global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is modest compared to
the contributions from soil carbon stocks. However, we note that the regional differences in the
products can significantly affect the spatial distribution and uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Figs. 3
and 4).  Alternate GPP estimates are likely to impact <inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates, although marginally. For
example, on global scales, the estimate of a GPP of 123 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by Zhang et al. (2017)
would lead to a reduction in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to our current estimates
(43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).  However, the difference is well within the range of our estimated uncertainty in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) using all the ensemble members. Given the robustness in spatial patterns in
GPP estimate from Zhang et al. (2017) compared to the FLUXCOM estimates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;
Fig. S8 in the Supplement), the spatial variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> shows a high correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (See Fig. S9 in the Supplement).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <label>5.4</label><title>Terrestrial carbon turnover times and associated uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e5064">The current global estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are substantially larger than previously (60 %), although
the global patterns are comparable to previous estimates. Our results show an overall agreement of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the current estimation and the previous estimation of the latitudinal gradient of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Carvalhais et al., 2014). The patterns in the latitudinal correlations between climate and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are also qualitatively similar to the previous patterns found with some particular
exceptions in the strength of correlations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature in northern temperate
systems and changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–precipitation correlations, especially in the tropics. A further
investigation on the causes behind these differences between the previous and current studies reflects
that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has a substantial contribution to these changes in the correlation
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and climate, while GPP has only a modest role in altering the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–temperature
correlation changes in northern temperate regions (see Fig. S6 in the Supplement). This is
consistent with the assessment of the largest differences in the spatial distribution of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the three soil datasets used in this study and the HWSD soil dataset used
before (Fig. 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e5151">The uncertainty analysis showed that our current estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> has a considerable spread
which is derived from state-of-the-art observations of carbon stocks in soils and vegetation and of
carbon fluxes. The uncertainty mainly stems from the soil carbon stocks (84 %) and GPP
fluxes (15 %), in which the former dominates the vast areas in the circumpolar regions and the
tropical peatland, while the latter dominates the semiarid and arid regions (Fig. 6). Although GPP
shows a strong agreement in global spatial patterns, local differences between estimates can lead to
significant differences in the estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. This result is consistent with previous
observations and model-based studies that also refer to the biases in estimated primary productivity
in affecting the carbon turnover estimations to a large extent (Todd-Brown et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e5168">In contrast to global modeling approaches, previous studies have shown that the global soil carbon
stocks across observation-based datasets are much less divergent than the ESM simulations
included in CMIP5 (Carvalhais et al., 2014). The CMIP5 results show that the simulated carbon
storage ranges from 500 to 3000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, implying a 3-fold variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> across models
(Todd-Brown et al. 2013; Carvalhais et al., 2014). Our current results show that the total amount
of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems is substantially higher than the estimation by ESMs, in which  even
the lowest estimation of total carbon storage (in the Sanderman dataset) is about 300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PgC</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
higher than the highest ESM estimation (MPI-ESM-LR; Todd-Brown et al., 2013). The spatial
distribution of carbon stocks among ESMs shows a large variation across models (Carvalhais et al.,
2014), while the observation-based datasets are more consistent in the non-circumpolar
regions. However, the uncertainty analysis shows that our current estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> has a
considerable spread resulting mainly from the spread in state-of-the-art estimates of soil carbon
stocks, followed by the spread in estimates of GPP. The estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is dependent on the
assumption of a maximum soil depth used to estimate soil C stocks that particularly in<?pagebreak page2533?> the
circumpolar regions contribute 54 % to the overall uncertainty, while the data source
contributes 25 %. Soil depth itself is characterized by a large uncertainty given the difficulty
in assessing in situ measurement uncertainties in defining a depth at which the soil becomes
metabolically inactive and in determining the role of vertical transport to a depth-dependent
concentration. The challenge in circumpolar regions relates additionally to the influence of active
layer dynamics on the spatial and temporal variability in metabolic activity. From an ESM
perspective, it is difficult to avoid relying on a whole soil, or ecosystem, estimate to compare it
with observation-based estimates given that these models abstract from depth-dependent soil carbon
decomposition dynamics or have not reported the depth of the soil carbon stocks (Carvalhais et al.,
2014). In this aspect, an explicit consideration of soil C stocks at depth in ESMs would be
instrumental in understanding and evaluating the distribution of ecosystem carbon stocks and
turnover times against observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5208">It is worth noting that here the estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is based on the steady-state assumption, which
is the assumption of a balanced net exchange of carbon between terrestrial ecosystems and the
atmosphere. Here, the assumption is that integrating at larger spatial scales, by averaging the
local variations in sink and source conditions, reduces the differences between assimilation and
outflux relative to the gross influx and that the integration of stocks and fluxes for long-term
spans reduces the effects of transient changes in climate and of interannual variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
estimates. However, this assumption is valid to a significantly lesser extent at smaller spatial scales
(site-level) and shorter time intervals since the ecosystem–atmosphere exchange of carbon is most of
the time not in balance, and forced steady-state assumptions can lead to biases in estimates of
turnover times and other ecosystem parameters (Ge et al., 2018; Carvalhais et al., 2008).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS5">
  <label>5.5</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Robust associations of $\tau$ and climate}?><title>Robust associations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and climate</title>
      <p id="d1e5241">Despite the large uncertainty in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimations, we identified robust patterns in the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–climate relationship that can be instrumental in addressing the large uncertainties in
modeling the sensitivity of terrestrial carbon to climate, which are reflected in the spread of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates by the different ESMs (Tod-Brown et al., 2013). The zonal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
a robust feature that changes little across different datasets, which indicates that the current
state-of-the-art datasets all agree on the latitudinal gradient of the carbon turnover time
(Fig. 7). In addition, the latitudinal change rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is robust against any considered soil
depth (Fig. 7), which reflects pattern comparability between assumptions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> gradients up to
1 m (Koven et al. 2017; Wang et al., 2018) or to full soil depth (Carvalhais et al.,
2014). The robustness of the latitudinal patterns in the ensemble is likely to emerge from the
latitudinal gradient in temperature, shaping the zonal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that increases towards
the poles as mean annual temperatures substantially decrease.</p>
      <p id="d1e5294">This study addresses the robustness of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–climate association by investigating the zonal
correlations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature and between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and precipitation. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–temperature correlation varies with latitude in which high correlations are found at higher
latitudes and low to moderate correlations are found closer to the tropics (Fig. 8). The latitudinal
gradient in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> relationship is similar when compared with previous results (Carvalhais
et al., 2014), although the strength of the correlations can vary marginally by changing GPP
products but more substantially when exchanging the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> datasets (Fig. S6 in the
Supplement).  However, these relationships show strong robustness across state-of-the-art datasets
(Fig. 8). On the other hand, the zonal patterns of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–precipitation are more challenging to
converge across different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sources (Fig. 8e) when compared with uncertainties
stemming from GPP (Fig. 8f) regardless of the depth considered (Fig. S11 in the Supplement). Overall,
the correlation between turnover times and precipitation in the tropics is higher than that with
temperature, as shown in Fig. 8d, indicating a potentially more dominant role of precipitation in the
tropics (Wang et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e5369">Overall, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> correlations, although varying in strength, are robust across the data
ensemble except when controlling for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> source (Fig. 8e). The role of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> relationships is independent of depth (Fig. S11 in the
Supplement) and explains most of the differences found in the patterns of previous results
(Carvalhais et al., 2014), which are mainly caused by the differences in the soil carbon stock
(Fig. S6 in the Supplement). Given that the data and methodological support are substantially shared
across the different approaches (see Sect. 2.1) and given the potential limitations in representing
contributions of soil moisture to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at deeper layers, even shallower than 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, these
results highlight the relevance of better understanding and diagnosing the effects of the
hydrological cycle on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The limitation may be linked to the realization that
methods based on random forests tend to show high correlations between predicted top soil and deeper
soil estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as well as lower correlations to deeper
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> geographic variability (Wadoux et al., 2019; Padarian et al., 2019).</p>
      <p id="d1e5468">Ultimately, given the recognition that the sensitivity of the terrestrial carbon to climate is a
major uncertainty reflected in the spread of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> across different ESMs, the reliable estimation
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and identification of robust patterns in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–climate associations is key to provide
robust constraints to improve the performance of the current ESMs. Notwithstanding, the intimate
interaction of energy and water along with other factors such as land use change all affect <inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
but on different spatial and temporal scales. Further research directions would gain by exploring
the contribution of addition potential factors that may influence the spatial distribution of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, such as mortality and disturbance regimes, human impact via management regimes or land cover
change dynamics, and the vertical distribution of the hydrological cycles.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page2534?><sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Data availability</title>
      <p id="d1e5515">The dataset of the entire ecosystem turnover times of carbon presented in this study can be downloaded
from the Data Portal of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911" ext-link-type="DOI">10.17871/bgitau.201911</ext-link> (Fan et al., 2019).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5529">A full assessment of the global turnover times of carbon is provided using
an observation-based ensemble of current state-of-the-art datasets of soil
carbon stocks, vegetation biomass and GPP. On the global scale, the
uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates are dominated by the large uncertainties
in soil carbon stocks. The uncertainty of carbon stocks and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
estimation in the circumpolar regions is significantly higher than that in
the non-circumpolar regions. Our results show that there is a consistent
vertical distribution of soil carbon across datasets, and it is estimated
that soils below 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> comprise up to 20 % of total soil carbon globally. A
spatial analysis shows that both soil carbon and GPP are the major
contributors to local uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> estimation. The differences
in soil stocks between datasets dominate the uncertainties of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
circumpolar regions, while the spread in GPP dominates the uncertainty in
semiarid and arid regions. The difference in vegetation data has a minor
contribution to the uncertainty.</p>
      <p id="d1e5568">Despite the differences, we identified several robust patterns that change
only marginally across different ensemble members of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that derived
from different datasets or different soil depths. First, we found a
consistent latitudinal pattern in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that can be described by a
second-degree polynomial function. The changing rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with
latitude can be described equally well for all ensemble members, and the
changing rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with latitude is highly consistent across different
datasets and does not change with soil depth. The same zonal correlations
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and climate showed there is a robust association of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
with temperature and with precipitation. However, we note that the association
between temperature and precipitation and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> change with latitude.
Specifically, temperature mainly affects the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> variation in middle to
high latitudes beyond 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, while
precipitation affects <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> not only in temperate zones but also in the
tropical regions. Overall, this study synthesizes the current
state-of-the-art data on global carbon turnover estimation and argues that
the zonal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and its covariation with climate is robust
across the diverse observation-based ensemble considered here. These results
build on previous efforts and support exercises for benchmarking ESMs.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e5660">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2517-2020-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2517-2020-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5671">NF and NC designed the study. NF conducted analysis and wrote the paper
under the direction of NC. MT, VA and MS provided data for the analysis.
NF and UW collected and harmonized datasets. NF, UW and SK contributed to
methodological development. SK participated in the discussion and
development of the paper. All authors contributed to the discussions and
interpretation of the results and the writing of the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5677">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5683">We would like to acknowledge the support of Tomislav Hengl for providing
soil carbon data and discussions regarding the analysis. We would like to
thank Saatchi Sassan for providing one of the vegetation biomass datasets.
We thank Martin Jung for providing GPP data and useful feedback and Jacob
A. Nelson for suggestions on improving the paper's language.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5688">This research has been supported by the International Max Planck Research School for Global Biogeochemical Cycle and the European Space Agency (grant no. No. 4000113100/14/I-NB).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5694">This paper was edited by David Carlson and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Asner, G. P.,
Armston, J., Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., and Bayol, N.: An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using
multiple reference datasets, Glob. Change Biol., 22, 1406–1420, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13139</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 2?><mixed-citation> Baccini, A., Goetz, S., Walker, W., Laporte, N., Sun, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., Hackler,
J., Beck, P., Dubayah, R., and Friedl, M.: Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical
deforestation improved by carbon-density maps, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 182–185, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 3?><mixed-citation> Barrett, D. J.: Steady state turnover time of carbon in the Australian terrestrial
biosphere, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16, 55-1–55-21, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 4?><mixed-citation> Batjes, N.: Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with
estimates of global soil carbon stocks, Geoderma, 269, 61–68, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 5?><mixed-citation>Batjes, N. H., Ribeiro, E., and van Oostrum, A.: Standardised soil profile data to
support global mapping and modelling (WoSIS snapshot 2019), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 299–320,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-299-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-12-299-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 6?><mixed-citation> Bolin, B. and Rodhe, H.: A note on the concepts of age distribution and transit time in
natural reservoirs, Tellus, 25, 58–62, 1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 7?><mixed-citation>Carvalhais, N., Reichstein, M., Seixas, J., Collatz, G. J., Pereira, J. S., Berbigier,
P., Carrara, A., Granier, A., Montagnani, L., and Papale, D.: Implications of the carbon cycle
steady state assumption for biogeochemical modeling performance an<?pagebreak page2535?>d inverse parameter retrieval,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB2007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GB003033</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 8?><mixed-citation> Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca, M., Mu, M.,
Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens, B., Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson,
J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial
ecosystems, Nature, 514, 213–217, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 9?><mixed-citation> Davidson, E. A. and Janssens, I. A.: Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon
decomposition and feedbacks to climate change, Nature, 440, 165–173, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 10?><mixed-citation>Fan, N., Koirala, S., Reichstein, M., Thurner, M., Avitabile, V., Santoro, M., Ahrens,
B., Weber, U., and Carvarhais, N.: Ecosystem turnover time database, MPI-BGC,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911" ext-link-type="DOI">10.17871/bgitau.201911</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 13?><mixed-citation>Fick, S. E. and Hijmans, R. J.: WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate
surfaces for global land areas, Int. J. Climatol., 37, 4302-4315, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.5086</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., Von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., and Fung, I.: Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison, J. Climate, 19, 3337–3353, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 12?><mixed-citation>Friend, A. D., Lucht, W., Rademacher, T. T., Keribin, R., Betts, R., Cadule, P., Ciais,
P., Clark, D. B., Dankers, R., and Falloon, P. D.: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in
terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3280–3285, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 14?><mixed-citation>Ge, R., He, H., Ren, X., Zhang, L., Yu, G., Smallman, T. L., Zhou, T., Yu, S. Y., Luo,
Y., and Xie, Z.: Underestimated ecosystem carbon turnover time and sequestration under the steady
state assumption: a perspective from long-term data assimilation, Glob. Change Biol., 25, 938-953,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14547" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.14547</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 15?><mixed-citation>Generation 3 Database Reports: Nave, L., Johnson, K., van Ingen, C., Agarwal, D.,
Humphrey, M., and Beekwilder, N: International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) Database, Version 3,
Database Report: ISCN_SOC-DATA_LAYER_1-1, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17040/ISCN/1305039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.17040/ISCN/1305039</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 17?><mixed-citation>Hansen, N. and Ostermeier, A.: Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution
Strategies, Evol. Comput., 9, 159–195, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1162/106365601750190398</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 18?><mixed-citation>Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., MacMillan, R. A., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G.  B.,
Ribeiro, E., Samuel-Rosa, A., Kempen, B., Leenaars, J. G., and Walsh, M.  G.:
SoilGrids1km – global soil information based on automated mapping, PloS one, 9, e105992,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105992" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0105992</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 19?><mixed-citation>Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., Heuvelink, G. B., Gonzalez, M. R., Kilibarda, M.,
Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X., and Bauer-Marschallinger, B.:
SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning, PloS one, 12, e0169748,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0169748</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 20?><mixed-citation>Hugelius, G., Bockheim, J. G., Camill, P., Elberling, B., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W.,
Johnson, K., Jorgenson, T., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., Michaelson, G., Mishra, U., Palmtag, J.,
Ping, C.-L., O'Donnell, J., Schirrmeister, L., Schuur, E. A. G., Sheng, Y., Smith, L. C., Strauss,
J., and Yu, Z.: A new data set for estimating organic carbon storage to 3 m depth in soils of the
northern circumpolar permafrost region, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 393–402,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-393-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-5-393-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 21?><mixed-citation>Jackson, R. B., Lajtha, K., Crow, S. E., Hugelius, G., Kramer, M. G., and Piñeiro,
G.: The ecology of soil carbon: pools, vulnerabilities, and biotic and abiotic controls,
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 48, 419–445, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 22?><mixed-citation> Jobbágy, E. G. and Jackson, R. B.: The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon
and its relation to climate and vegetation, Ecol. Appl., 10, 423–436, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Jung, M., Henkel, K., Herold, M., and Churkina, G.: Exploiting synergies of global land cover products for carbon cycle modeling, Remote Sens. Environ., 101, 534–553, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 23?><mixed-citation>Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Schwalm, C. R., Huntingford, C., Sitch, S., Ahlström, A.,
Arneth, A., Camps-Valls, G., Ciais, P., and Friedlingstein, P.: Compensatory water effects link
yearly global land <inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sink changes to temperature, Nature, 541, 516–520, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jung, M., Schwalm, C., Migliavacca, M., Walther, S., Camps-Valls, G., Koirala, S., Anthoni, P., Besnard, S., Bodesheim, P., Carvalhais, N., Chevallier, F., Gans, F., Goll, D. S., Haverd, V., Köhler, P., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Liu, J., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nelson, J. A., O'Sullivan, M., Pallandt, M., Papale, D., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Rödenbeck, C., Sitch, S., Tramontana, G., Walker, A., Weber, U., and Reichstein, M.: Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 1343–1365, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 26?><mixed-citation>Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Wieder, W. R.: Higher climatological
temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm climates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 817–822,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate3421</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 27?><mixed-citation>Padarian, J., Minasny, B., and McBratney, A. B.: Using deep learning for digital soil
mapping, SOIL, 5, 79–89, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-79-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/soil-5-79-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 28?><mixed-citation>Raich, J. and Schlesinger, W. H.: The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration
and its relationship to vegetation and climate, Tellus B, 44, 81–99,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v44i2.15428" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusb.v44i2.15428</ext-link>, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 29?><mixed-citation> Saatchi, S. S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T., Salas, W.,
Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., and Hagen, S.: Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in
tropical regions across three continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 9899–9904, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 30?><mixed-citation> Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., and Fiske, G. J.: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human
land use, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 9575–9580, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 31?><mixed-citation> Santoro, M., Beaudoin, A., Beer, C., Cartus, O., Fransson, J. E., Hall, R.  J., Pathe,
C., Schmullius, C., Schepaschenko, D., and Shvidenko, A.: Forest growing stock volume of the
northern hemisphere: Spatially explicit estimates for 2010 derived from Envisat ASAR, Remote
Sens. Environ., 168, 316–334, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 32?><mixed-citation>Santoro, M., Cartus, O., Mermoz, S., Bouvet, A., Le Toan, T., Carvalhais, N.,
Rozendaal, D., Herold, M., Avitabile, V., Quegan, S., Carreiras, J., Rauste, Y., Balzter, H.,
Schmullius, C., Seifert, F. M.: A detailed portrait of the forest aboveground biomass pool for the
year 2010 obtained from multiple remote sensing observations, 20th EGU General Assembly, EGU2018,
Proceedings from the conference held 4–13 April 2018 in Vienn<?pagebreak page2536?>a, Austria, p. 18932, available at:
<uri>https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..2018932S/abstract</uri> (last access: 5 August 2019), 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Santoro, M., Cartus, O., Carvalhais, N., Rozendaal, D., Avitabilie, V., Araza, A., de Bruin, S., Herold, M., Quegan, S., Rodríguez Veiga, P., Balzter, H., Carreiras, J., Schepaschenko, D., Korets, M., Shimada, M., Itoh, T., Moreno Martínez, Á., Cavlovic, J., Cazzolla Gatti, R., da Conceição Bispo, P., Dewnath, N., Labrière, N., Liang, J., Lindsell, J., Mitchard, E. T. A., Morel, A., Pacheco Pascagaza, A. M., Ryan, C. M., Slik, F., Vaglio Laurin, G., Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A., and Willcock, S.: The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-148" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-2020-148</ext-link>, in review, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 33?><mixed-citation>Thurner, M., Beer, C., Santoro, M., Carvalhais, N., Wutzler, T., Schepaschenko, D.,
Shvidenko, A., Kompter, E., Ahrens, B., and Levick, S. R.: Carbon stock and density of northern
boreal and temperate forests, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 23, 297–310, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12125" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/geb.12125</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thurner, M., Beer, C., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D., Ito, A., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M. R., Quegan, S., Rademacher, T. T., and Schaphoff, S.: Evaluation of climate‐related carbon turnover processes in global vegetation models for boreal and temperate forests, Global Change Biol., 23, 3076–3091, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13660" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13660</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 34?><mixed-citation>Tifafi, M., Guenet, B., and Hatté, C.: Large differences in global and regional
total soil carbon stock estimates based on SoilGrids, HWSD, and NCSCD: Intercomparison and
evaluation based on field data from USA, England, Wales, and France, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 32,
42–56, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GB005678" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GB005678</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 35?><mixed-citation>Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M., Tarnocai, C.,
Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D.: Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5
Earth system models and comparison with observations, Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–1736,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 36?><mixed-citation>Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Hopkins, F., Arora, V., Hajima, T., Jones, C.,
Shevliakova, E., Tjiputra, J., Volodin, E., Wu, T., Zhang, Q., and Allison, S. D.: Changes in soil
organic carbon storage predicted by Earth system models during the 21st century, Biogeosciences,
11, 2341–2356, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2341-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-11-2341-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 37?><mixed-citation>Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G., Ráduly, B.,
Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G., Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert,
S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.: Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET
sites with regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 38?><mixed-citation>Wadoux, A. M. J.-C., Padarian, J., and Minasny, B.: Multi-source data integration for soil mapping using deep learning, SOIL, 5, 107–119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-107-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/soil-5-107-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 39?><mixed-citation>Wang, J., Sun, J., Xia, J., He, N., Li, M., and Niu, S.: Soil and vegetation carbon
turnover times from tropical to boreal forests, Funct. Ecol., 32, 71–82,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12914" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1365-2435.12914</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 40?><mixed-citation>Webb, R., Rosenzweig, C. E., and Levine, E. R.: Global Soil Texture and Derived
Water-Holding Capacities, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/548" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3334/ORNLDAAC/548</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 41?><mixed-citation>Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V., and Friedlingstein, P.: Emergent constraints on
climate-carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system models, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119,
794–807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002591" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JG002591</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 42?><mixed-citation>Wheeler, I., Hengl, T.: Soil organic carbon stock in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> time-series
2001–2015 based on the land cover changes (Version v0.2) [Data set], Zenodo,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2529721" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.2529721</ext-link>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 43?><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Xiao, X., Wu, X., Zhou, S., Zhang, G., Qin, Y., and Dong, J.: A global
moderate resolution dataset of gross primary production of vegetation for 2000–2016, Sci. Data,
4, 170165, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.165" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/sdata.2017.165</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Apparent ecosystem carbon turnover time:  uncertainties and robust features</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The turnover time of terrestrial ecosystem carbon is an emergent ecosystem property that
quantifies the strength of land surface on the global carbon cycle–climate feedback. However,
observation- and modeling-based estimates of carbon turnover and its response to climate are
still characterized by large uncertainties. In this study, by assessing the apparent whole
ecosystem carbon turnover times (<i>τ</i>) as the ratio between carbon stocks and fluxes, we
provide an update of this ecosystem level diagnostic and its associated uncertainties in high
spatial resolution (0.083°) using multiple, state-of-the-art, observation-based datasets
of soil organic carbon stock (C<sub>soil</sub>), vegetation biomass (C<sub>veg</sub>)
and gross primary productivity (GPP). Using this new ensemble of data, we estimated the global
median <i>τ</i> to be 43<sub>−7</sub><sup>+7</sup>&thinsp;yr
(median<sub>−difference to percentile 25</sub><sup>+difference to percentile
75</sup>) when the full soil is considered, in contrast to limiting it to 1&thinsp;m
depth. Only considering the top 1&thinsp;m of soil carbon in circumpolar regions (assuming
maximum active layer depth is up to 1&thinsp;m) yields a global median <i>τ</i> of
37<sub>−6</sub><sup>+3</sup>&thinsp;yr, which is longer than the previous estimates of 23<sub>−4</sub><sup>+7</sup>&thinsp;yr
(Carvalhais et al., 2014). We show that the difference is mostly attributed to changes in global
C<sub>soil</sub> estimates. C<sub>soil</sub> accounts for approximately 84&thinsp;% of
the total uncertainty in global <i>τ</i> estimates; GPP also contributes significantly
(15&thinsp;%), whereas C<sub>veg</sub> contributes only marginally (less than 1&thinsp;%) to the
total uncertainty. The high uncertainty in C<sub>soil</sub> is reflected in the large range
across state-of-the-art data products, in which full-depth C<sub>soil</sub> spans between
3362 and 4792&thinsp;PgC. The uncertainty is especially high in circumpolar regions with an
uncertainty of 50&thinsp;% and a low spatial correlation between the different datasets
(0.2 &lt; <i>r</i> &lt; 0.5) when compared to other regions (0.6 &lt; <i>r</i> &lt; 0.8). These uncertainties cast a shadow
on current global estimates of <i>τ</i> in circumpolar regions, for which further geographical
representativeness and clarification on variations in C<sub>soil</sub> with soil depth are
needed.  Different GPP estimates contribute significantly to the uncertainties of <i>τ</i> mainly in
semiarid and arid regions, whereas C<sub>veg</sub> causes the uncertainties of <i>τ</i> in
the subtropics and tropics. In spite of the large uncertainties, our findings reveal that the
latitudinal gradients of <i>τ</i> are consistent across different datasets and soil depths. The
current results show a strong ensemble agreement on the negative correlation between <i>τ</i> and
temperature along latitude that is stronger in temperate zones (30–60°&thinsp;N) than
in the subtropical and tropical zones (30°&thinsp;S–30°&thinsp;N).  Additionally, while the
strength of the <i>τ</i>–precipitation correlation was dependent on the C<sub>soil</sub> data
source, the latitudinal gradients also agree among different ensemble members. Overall, and
despite the large variation in <i>τ</i>, we identified robust features in the spatial patterns of
<i>τ</i> that emerge beyond the differences stemming from the data-driven estimates of
C<sub>soil</sub>, C<sub>veg</sub> and GPP. These robust patterns, and associated
uncertainties, can be used to infer <i>τ</i>–climate relationships and for constraining
contemporaneous behavior of Earth
system models (ESMs), which could contribute to uncertainty reductions in future
projections of the carbon cycle–climate feedback. The dataset of <i>τ</i> is openly available at
<a href="https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911</a> (Fan et al., 2019).</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation> Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Asner, G. P.,
Armston, J., Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., and Bayol, N.: An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using
multiple reference datasets, Glob. Change Biol., 22, 1406–1420, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation> Baccini, A., Goetz, S., Walker, W., Laporte, N., Sun, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., Hackler,
J., Beck, P., Dubayah, R., and Friedl, M.: Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical
deforestation improved by carbon-density maps, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 182–185, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation> Barrett, D. J.: Steady state turnover time of carbon in the Australian terrestrial
biosphere, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16, 55-1–55-21, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation> Batjes, N.: Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with
estimates of global soil carbon stocks, Geoderma, 269, 61–68, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation> Batjes, N. H., Ribeiro, E., and van Oostrum, A.: Standardised soil profile data to
support global mapping and modelling (WoSIS snapshot 2019), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 299–320,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-299-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-299-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation> Bolin, B. and Rodhe, H.: A note on the concepts of age distribution and transit time in
natural reservoirs, Tellus, 25, 58–62, 1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation> Carvalhais, N., Reichstein, M., Seixas, J., Collatz, G. J., Pereira, J. S., Berbigier,
P., Carrara, A., Granier, A., Montagnani, L., and Papale, D.: Implications of the carbon cycle
steady state assumption for biogeochemical modeling performance and inverse parameter retrieval,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB2007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003033</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation> Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca, M., Mu, M.,
Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens, B., Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson,
J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial
ecosystems, Nature, 514, 213–217, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation> Davidson, E. A. and Janssens, I. A.: Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon
decomposition and feedbacks to climate change, Nature, 440, 165–173, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation> Fan, N., Koirala, S., Reichstein, M., Thurner, M., Avitabile, V., Santoro, M., Ahrens,
B., Weber, U., and Carvarhais, N.: Ecosystem turnover time database, MPI-BGC,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17871/bgitau.201911</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation> Fick, S. E. and Hijmans, R. J.: WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate
surfaces for global land areas, Int. J. Climatol., 37, 4302-4315, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., Von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., and Fung, I.: Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison, J. Climate, 19, 3337–3353, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation> Friend, A. D., Lucht, W., Rademacher, T. T., Keribin, R., Betts, R., Cadule, P., Ciais,
P., Clark, D. B., Dankers, R., and Falloon, P. D.: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in
terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3280–3285, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation> Ge, R., He, H., Ren, X., Zhang, L., Yu, G., Smallman, T. L., Zhou, T., Yu, S. Y., Luo,
Y., and Xie, Z.: Underestimated ecosystem carbon turnover time and sequestration under the steady
state assumption: a perspective from long-term data assimilation, Glob. Change Biol., 25, 938-953,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14547" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14547</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation> Generation 3 Database Reports: Nave, L., Johnson, K., van Ingen, C., Agarwal, D.,
Humphrey, M., and Beekwilder, N: International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) Database, Version 3,
Database Report: ISCN_SOC-DATA_LAYER_1-1, <a href="https://doi.org/10.17040/ISCN/1305039" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17040/ISCN/1305039</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation> Hansen, N. and Ostermeier, A.: Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution
Strategies, Evol. Comput., 9, 159–195, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation> Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., MacMillan, R. A., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G.  B.,
Ribeiro, E., Samuel-Rosa, A., Kempen, B., Leenaars, J. G., and Walsh, M.  G.:
SoilGrids1km – global soil information based on automated mapping, PloS one, 9, e105992,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105992" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105992</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation> Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., Heuvelink, G. B., Gonzalez, M. R., Kilibarda, M.,
Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X., and Bauer-Marschallinger, B.:
SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning, PloS one, 12, e0169748,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation> Hugelius, G., Bockheim, J. G., Camill, P., Elberling, B., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W.,
Johnson, K., Jorgenson, T., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., Michaelson, G., Mishra, U., Palmtag, J.,
Ping, C.-L., O'Donnell, J., Schirrmeister, L., Schuur, E. A. G., Sheng, Y., Smith, L. C., Strauss,
J., and Yu, Z.: A new data set for estimating organic carbon storage to 3 m depth in soils of the
northern circumpolar permafrost region, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 393–402,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-393-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-393-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation> Jackson, R. B., Lajtha, K., Crow, S. E., Hugelius, G., Kramer, M. G., and Piñeiro,
G.: The ecology of soil carbon: pools, vulnerabilities, and biotic and abiotic controls,
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 48, 419–445, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation> Jobbágy, E. G. and Jackson, R. B.: The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon
and its relation to climate and vegetation, Ecol. Appl., 10, 423–436, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Jung, M., Henkel, K., Herold, M., and Churkina, G.: Exploiting synergies of global land cover products for carbon cycle modeling, Remote Sens. Environ., 101, 534–553, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation> Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Schwalm, C. R., Huntingford, C., Sitch, S., Ahlström, A.,
Arneth, A., Camps-Valls, G., Ciais, P., and Friedlingstein, P.: Compensatory water effects link
yearly global land CO<sub>2</sub> sink changes to temperature, Nature, 541, 516–520, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Jung, M., Schwalm, C., Migliavacca, M., Walther, S., Camps-Valls, G., Koirala, S., Anthoni, P., Besnard, S., Bodesheim, P., Carvalhais, N., Chevallier, F., Gans, F., Goll, D. S., Haverd, V., Köhler, P., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Liu, J., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nelson, J. A., O'Sullivan, M., Pallandt, M., Papale, D., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Rödenbeck, C., Sitch, S., Tramontana, G., Walker, A., Weber, U., and Reichstein, M.: Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 1343–1365, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation> Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Wieder, W. R.: Higher climatological
temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm climates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 817–822,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation> Padarian, J., Minasny, B., and McBratney, A. B.: Using deep learning for digital soil
mapping, SOIL, 5, 79–89, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-79-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-79-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation> Raich, J. and Schlesinger, W. H.: The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration
and its relationship to vegetation and climate, Tellus B, 44, 81–99,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v44i2.15428" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v44i2.15428</a>, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation> Saatchi, S. S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T., Salas, W.,
Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., and Hagen, S.: Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in
tropical regions across three continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 9899–9904, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation> Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., and Fiske, G. J.: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human
land use, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 9575–9580, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation> Santoro, M., Beaudoin, A., Beer, C., Cartus, O., Fransson, J. E., Hall, R.  J., Pathe,
C., Schmullius, C., Schepaschenko, D., and Shvidenko, A.: Forest growing stock volume of the
northern hemisphere: Spatially explicit estimates for 2010 derived from Envisat ASAR, Remote
Sens. Environ., 168, 316–334, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation> Santoro, M., Cartus, O., Mermoz, S., Bouvet, A., Le Toan, T., Carvalhais, N.,
Rozendaal, D., Herold, M., Avitabile, V., Quegan, S., Carreiras, J., Rauste, Y., Balzter, H.,
Schmullius, C., Seifert, F. M.: A detailed portrait of the forest aboveground biomass pool for the
year 2010 obtained from multiple remote sensing observations, 20th EGU General Assembly, EGU2018,
Proceedings from the conference held 4–13 April 2018 in Vienna, Austria, p. 18932, available at:
<a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..2018932S/abstract" target="_blank"/> (last access: 5 August 2019), 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Santoro, M., Cartus, O., Carvalhais, N., Rozendaal, D., Avitabilie, V., Araza, A., de Bruin, S., Herold, M., Quegan, S., Rodríguez Veiga, P., Balzter, H., Carreiras, J., Schepaschenko, D., Korets, M., Shimada, M., Itoh, T., Moreno Martínez, Á., Cavlovic, J., Cazzolla Gatti, R., da Conceição Bispo, P., Dewnath, N., Labrière, N., Liang, J., Lindsell, J., Mitchard, E. T. A., Morel, A., Pacheco Pascagaza, A. M., Ryan, C. M., Slik, F., Vaglio Laurin, G., Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A., and Willcock, S.: The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-148" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-148</a>, in review, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation> Thurner, M., Beer, C., Santoro, M., Carvalhais, N., Wutzler, T., Schepaschenko, D.,
Shvidenko, A., Kompter, E., Ahrens, B., and Levick, S. R.: Carbon stock and density of northern
boreal and temperate forests, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 23, 297–310, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12125" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12125</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Thurner, M., Beer, C., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D., Ito, A., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M. R., Quegan, S., Rademacher, T. T., and Schaphoff, S.: Evaluation of climate‐related carbon turnover processes in global vegetation models for boreal and temperate forests, Global Change Biol., 23, 3076–3091, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13660" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13660</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation> Tifafi, M., Guenet, B., and Hatté, C.: Large differences in global and regional
total soil carbon stock estimates based on SoilGrids, HWSD, and NCSCD: Intercomparison and
evaluation based on field data from USA, England, Wales, and France, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 32,
42–56, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GB005678" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GB005678</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation> Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M., Tarnocai, C.,
Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D.: Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5
Earth system models and comparison with observations, Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–1736,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation> Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Hopkins, F., Arora, V., Hajima, T., Jones, C.,
Shevliakova, E., Tjiputra, J., Volodin, E., Wu, T., Zhang, Q., and Allison, S. D.: Changes in soil
organic carbon storage predicted by Earth system models during the 21st century, Biogeosciences,
11, 2341–2356, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2341-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2341-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation> Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G., Ráduly, B.,
Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G., Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert,
S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.: Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET
sites with regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation> Wadoux, A. M. J.-C., Padarian, J., and Minasny, B.: Multi-source data integration for soil mapping using deep learning, SOIL, 5, 107–119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-107-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-107-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation> Wang, J., Sun, J., Xia, J., He, N., Li, M., and Niu, S.: Soil and vegetation carbon
turnover times from tropical to boreal forests, Funct. Ecol., 32, 71–82,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12914" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12914</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation> Webb, R., Rosenzweig, C. E., and Levine, E. R.: Global Soil Texture and Derived
Water-Holding Capacities, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/548" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/548</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation> Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V., and Friedlingstein, P.: Emergent constraints on
climate-carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system models, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119,
794–807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002591" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002591</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation> Wheeler, I., Hengl, T.: Soil organic carbon stock in kg∕m<sup>2</sup> time-series
2001–2015 based on the land cover changes (Version v0.2) [Data set], Zenodo,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2529721" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2529721</a>, 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation> Zhang, Y., Xiao, X., Wu, X., Zhou, S., Zhang, G., Qin, Y., and Dong, J.: A global
moderate resolution dataset of gross primary production of vegetation for 2000–2016, Sci. Data,
4, 170165, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.165" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.165</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
