Effects of water limitation and competition on tree carbon allocation in an Earth system modelling framework

Abstract Earth system models (ESMs) have a limited capacity to represent plant functional diversity and shifts in trait distributions. Approaches to improving the representation of this complexity in ESMs include (i) optimality‐based approaches that predict trait–environment responses and (ii) explicitly modelling coexistence and community assembly. These approaches are expected to converge only when optimality‐based approaches identify competitively dominant strategies, which often differ from strategies that maximize ecosystem functioning or fitness components in monoculture. We used two models, LM3‐PPA (a vegetation demographic model designed as an ESM component) and BiomeE (a computationally efficient analog for LM3‐PPA), to explore how water limitation affects carbon allocation strategies of canopy trees. We compared competitive allocation strategies and those that maximize biomass or productivity in monoculture. We did not explicitly model coexistence or community assembly. Rather, we used model experiments to identify competitive and maximizing strategies in a two‐dimensional trait space under different precipitation and mortality scenarios. At 10 eastern US locations, we simulated historical, wet and dry climate scenarios, novel drought and three different mortality scenarios (low, medium or high sensitivity to water deficit). For each site and scenario, we identified the competitive strategy and three maximizing strategies (maximum biomass, productivity or drought‐tolerance). Root: leaf ratios tended to increase and leaf area tended to decrease with increasing water stress (increasing water limitation and its effects on mortality). However, relative to maximizing strategies, competitive strategies shifted towards greater allocation to roots and leaves with increasing water stress. Competitive overinvestments (greater allocation to roots and leaves by competitive strategies compared with maximizing strategies) were robust across different modelling contexts, including vegetation parameter sets ( Acer vs. Populus ), models (LM3‐PPA vs. BiomeE) and uncalibrated vsersus calibrated BiomeE versions. Synthesis : The theoretical prediction that competitive and maximizing allocation strategies differ under water limitation is confirmed for a demographic model designed as an ESM component. Optimality‐based trait predictions can simplify representing trait diversity in ESMs but do not always correspond to competitive outcomes. Explicitly modelling coexistence and community assembly in ESMs is challenging but is likely the most general approach to representing trait diversity.