Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes

Pablo Morales, Martin T. Sykes, Colin Prentice, Pete Smith, Benjamin Smith, Harald Bugmann, Barbel Zierl, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nicolas Viovy, Santi Sabate, Anabel Sanchez, Eduard Pla, Carlos A Gracia, Stephen Sitch, Almut Arneth, Jerome Ogee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

193 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Process-based models can be classified into: (a) terrestrial biogeochemical models (TBMs), which simulate fluxes of carbon, water and nitrogen coupled within terrestrial ecosystems, and (b) dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which further couple these processes interactively with changes in slow ecosystem processes depending on resource competition, establishment, growth and mortality of different vegetation types. In this study, four models - RHESSys, GOTILWA+, LPJ-GUESS and ORCHIDEE - representing both modelling approaches were compared and evaluated against benchmarks provided by eddy-covariance measurements of carbon and water fluxes at 15 forest sites within the EUROFLUX project. Overall, model-measurement agreement varied greatly among sites. Both modelling approaches have somewhat different strengths, but there was no model among those tested that universally performed well on the two variables evaluated. Small biases and errors suggest that ORCHIDEE and GOTILWA+ performed better in simulating carbon fluxes while LPJ-GUESS and RHESSys did a better job in simulating water fluxes. In general, the models can be considered as useful tools for studies of climate change impacts on carbon and water cycling in forests. However, the various sources of variation among models simulations and between models simulations and observed data described in this study place some constraints on the results and to some extent reduce their reliability. For example, at most sites in the Mediterranean region all models generally performed poorly most likely because of problems in the representation of water stress effects on both carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon release by heterotrophic respiration (R-h).

The use of flux data as a means of assessing key processes in models of this type is an important approach to improving model performance. Our results show that the models have value but that further model development is necessary with regard to the representation of the some of the key ecosystem processes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2211-2233
Number of pages23
JournalGlobal Change Biology
Volume11
Issue number12
Early online date27 Oct 2005
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2005

Keywords

  • AET
  • carbon and water fluxes
  • climate change
  • ecosystem models
  • euroflux
  • NEE
  • eddy-covariance
  • long-term
  • dioxide exchange
  • climate-change
  • Boreal Forest
  • NET carbon
  • terrestrial ecosystems
  • vegetation dynamics
  • deciduous forest
  • vapor exchange

Cite this

Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. / Morales, Pablo; Sykes, Martin T. ; Prentice, Colin; Smith, Pete; Smith, Benjamin; Bugmann, Harald; Zierl, Barbel; Friedlingstein, Pierre; Viovy, Nicolas; Sabate, Santi; Sanchez, Anabel; Pla, Eduard; Gracia, Carlos A ; Sitch, Stephen; Arneth, Almut; Ogee, Jerome.

In: Global Change Biology, Vol. 11, No. 12, 12.2005, p. 2211-2233.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Morales, P, Sykes, MT, Prentice, C, Smith, P, Smith, B, Bugmann, H, Zierl, B, Friedlingstein, P, Viovy, N, Sabate, S, Sanchez, A, Pla, E, Gracia, CA, Sitch, S, Arneth, A & Ogee, J 2005, 'Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes' Global Change Biology, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2211-2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x
Morales, Pablo ; Sykes, Martin T. ; Prentice, Colin ; Smith, Pete ; Smith, Benjamin ; Bugmann, Harald ; Zierl, Barbel ; Friedlingstein, Pierre ; Viovy, Nicolas ; Sabate, Santi ; Sanchez, Anabel ; Pla, Eduard ; Gracia, Carlos A ; Sitch, Stephen ; Arneth, Almut ; Ogee, Jerome. / Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. In: Global Change Biology. 2005 ; Vol. 11, No. 12. pp. 2211-2233.
@article{c0703a236b6443c1add9f563396f77b4,
title = "Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes",
abstract = "Process-based models can be classified into: (a) terrestrial biogeochemical models (TBMs), which simulate fluxes of carbon, water and nitrogen coupled within terrestrial ecosystems, and (b) dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which further couple these processes interactively with changes in slow ecosystem processes depending on resource competition, establishment, growth and mortality of different vegetation types. In this study, four models - RHESSys, GOTILWA+, LPJ-GUESS and ORCHIDEE - representing both modelling approaches were compared and evaluated against benchmarks provided by eddy-covariance measurements of carbon and water fluxes at 15 forest sites within the EUROFLUX project. Overall, model-measurement agreement varied greatly among sites. Both modelling approaches have somewhat different strengths, but there was no model among those tested that universally performed well on the two variables evaluated. Small biases and errors suggest that ORCHIDEE and GOTILWA+ performed better in simulating carbon fluxes while LPJ-GUESS and RHESSys did a better job in simulating water fluxes. In general, the models can be considered as useful tools for studies of climate change impacts on carbon and water cycling in forests. However, the various sources of variation among models simulations and between models simulations and observed data described in this study place some constraints on the results and to some extent reduce their reliability. For example, at most sites in the Mediterranean region all models generally performed poorly most likely because of problems in the representation of water stress effects on both carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon release by heterotrophic respiration (R-h).The use of flux data as a means of assessing key processes in models of this type is an important approach to improving model performance. Our results show that the models have value but that further model development is necessary with regard to the representation of the some of the key ecosystem processes.",
keywords = "AET, carbon and water fluxes, climate change, ecosystem models, euroflux, NEE, eddy-covariance, long-term, dioxide exchange, climate-change, Boreal Forest, NET carbon, terrestrial ecosystems, vegetation dynamics, deciduous forest, vapor exchange",
author = "Pablo Morales and Sykes, {Martin T.} and Colin Prentice and Pete Smith and Benjamin Smith and Harald Bugmann and Barbel Zierl and Pierre Friedlingstein and Nicolas Viovy and Santi Sabate and Anabel Sanchez and Eduard Pla and Gracia, {Carlos A} and Stephen Sitch and Almut Arneth and Jerome Ogee",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "2211--2233",
journal = "Global Change Biology",
issn = "1354-1013",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes

AU - Morales, Pablo

AU - Sykes, Martin T.

AU - Prentice, Colin

AU - Smith, Pete

AU - Smith, Benjamin

AU - Bugmann, Harald

AU - Zierl, Barbel

AU - Friedlingstein, Pierre

AU - Viovy, Nicolas

AU - Sabate, Santi

AU - Sanchez, Anabel

AU - Pla, Eduard

AU - Gracia, Carlos A

AU - Sitch, Stephen

AU - Arneth, Almut

AU - Ogee, Jerome

PY - 2005/12

Y1 - 2005/12

N2 - Process-based models can be classified into: (a) terrestrial biogeochemical models (TBMs), which simulate fluxes of carbon, water and nitrogen coupled within terrestrial ecosystems, and (b) dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which further couple these processes interactively with changes in slow ecosystem processes depending on resource competition, establishment, growth and mortality of different vegetation types. In this study, four models - RHESSys, GOTILWA+, LPJ-GUESS and ORCHIDEE - representing both modelling approaches were compared and evaluated against benchmarks provided by eddy-covariance measurements of carbon and water fluxes at 15 forest sites within the EUROFLUX project. Overall, model-measurement agreement varied greatly among sites. Both modelling approaches have somewhat different strengths, but there was no model among those tested that universally performed well on the two variables evaluated. Small biases and errors suggest that ORCHIDEE and GOTILWA+ performed better in simulating carbon fluxes while LPJ-GUESS and RHESSys did a better job in simulating water fluxes. In general, the models can be considered as useful tools for studies of climate change impacts on carbon and water cycling in forests. However, the various sources of variation among models simulations and between models simulations and observed data described in this study place some constraints on the results and to some extent reduce their reliability. For example, at most sites in the Mediterranean region all models generally performed poorly most likely because of problems in the representation of water stress effects on both carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon release by heterotrophic respiration (R-h).The use of flux data as a means of assessing key processes in models of this type is an important approach to improving model performance. Our results show that the models have value but that further model development is necessary with regard to the representation of the some of the key ecosystem processes.

AB - Process-based models can be classified into: (a) terrestrial biogeochemical models (TBMs), which simulate fluxes of carbon, water and nitrogen coupled within terrestrial ecosystems, and (b) dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which further couple these processes interactively with changes in slow ecosystem processes depending on resource competition, establishment, growth and mortality of different vegetation types. In this study, four models - RHESSys, GOTILWA+, LPJ-GUESS and ORCHIDEE - representing both modelling approaches were compared and evaluated against benchmarks provided by eddy-covariance measurements of carbon and water fluxes at 15 forest sites within the EUROFLUX project. Overall, model-measurement agreement varied greatly among sites. Both modelling approaches have somewhat different strengths, but there was no model among those tested that universally performed well on the two variables evaluated. Small biases and errors suggest that ORCHIDEE and GOTILWA+ performed better in simulating carbon fluxes while LPJ-GUESS and RHESSys did a better job in simulating water fluxes. In general, the models can be considered as useful tools for studies of climate change impacts on carbon and water cycling in forests. However, the various sources of variation among models simulations and between models simulations and observed data described in this study place some constraints on the results and to some extent reduce their reliability. For example, at most sites in the Mediterranean region all models generally performed poorly most likely because of problems in the representation of water stress effects on both carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon release by heterotrophic respiration (R-h).The use of flux data as a means of assessing key processes in models of this type is an important approach to improving model performance. Our results show that the models have value but that further model development is necessary with regard to the representation of the some of the key ecosystem processes.

KW - AET

KW - carbon and water fluxes

KW - climate change

KW - ecosystem models

KW - euroflux

KW - NEE

KW - eddy-covariance

KW - long-term

KW - dioxide exchange

KW - climate-change

KW - Boreal Forest

KW - NET carbon

KW - terrestrial ecosystems

KW - vegetation dynamics

KW - deciduous forest

KW - vapor exchange

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 2211

EP - 2233

JO - Global Change Biology

JF - Global Change Biology

SN - 1354-1013

IS - 12

ER -