Abstract
The terrestrial carbon cycle is a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. Its dominant fluxes, gross primary productivity (GPP), and respiration (in particular soil respiration, R(S)), are typically estimated from independent satellite-driven models and upscaled in situ measurements, respectively. We combine carbon-cycle flux estimates and partitioning coefficients to show that historical estimates of global GPP and R(S) are irreconcilable. When we estimate GPP based on R(S) measurements and some assumptions about R(S):GPP ratios, we found the resulted global GPP values (bootstrap mean [Formula: see text] Pg C yr(-1)) are significantly higher than most GPP estimates reported in the literature ([Formula: see text] Pg C yr(-1)). Similarly, historical GPP estimates imply a soil respiration flux (Rs(GPP), bootstrap mean of [Formula: see text] Pg C yr(-1)) statistically inconsistent with most published R(S) values ([Formula: see text] Pg C yr(-1)), although recent, higher, GPP estimates are narrowing this gap. Furthermore, global R(S):GPP ratios are inconsistent with spatial averages of this ratio calculated from individual sites as well as CMIP6 model results. This discrepancy has implications for our understanding of carbon turnover times and the terrestrial sensitivity to climate change. Future efforts should reconcile the discrepancies associated with calculations for GPP and Rs to improve estimates of the global carbon budget.