Literature DB >> 15870053

On the validation of models of forest CO2 exchange using eddy covariance data: some perils and pitfalls.

Belinda E Medlyn1, Andrew P Robinson, Robert Clement, Ross E McMurtrie.   

Abstract

With the widespread application of eddy covariance technology, long-term records of hourly ecosystem mass and energy exchange are becoming available for forests around the world. These data sets hold great promise for testing and validation of models of forest function. However, model validation is not a straightforward task. The goals of this paper were to: (1) review some of the problems inherent in model validation; and (2) survey the tools available to modelers to improve validation procedures, with particular reference to eddy covariance data. A simple set of models applied to a data set of ecosystem CO2 exchange is used to illustrate our points. The major problems discussed are equifinality, insensitivity and uncertainty. Equifinality is the problem that different models, or different parameterizations of the same model, may yield similar results, making it difficult to distinguish which is correct. Insensitivity arises because the major sources of variation in eddy covariance data are the annual and diurnal cycles, which are represented by even the most basic models, and the size of the response to these cycles can mask effects of other driving variables. Uncertainty arises from three main sources: parameters, model structure and data, each of which is discussed in turn. Uncertainty is a particular issue with eddy covariance data because of the lack of replicated measurements and the potential for unquantified systematic errors such as flux loss due to advection. We surveyed several tools that improve model validation, including sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, residual analysis and model comparison. Illustrative examples are used to demonstrate the use of each tool. We show that simplistic comparisons of model outputs with eddy covariance data are problematic, but use of these tools can greatly improve our confidence in model predictions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15870053     DOI: 10.1093/treephys/25.7.839

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tree Physiol        ISSN: 0829-318X            Impact factor:   4.196


  9 in total

1.  A Photosynthesis-based Two-leaf Canopy Stomatal Conductance Model for Meteorology and Air Quality Modeling with WRF/CMAQ PX LSM.

Authors:  Limei Ran; Jonathan Pleim; Conghe Song; Larry Band; John T Walker; Francis S Binkowski
Journal:  J Geophys Res Atmos       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 4.261

2.  Controls on seasonal patterns of maximum ecosystem carbon uptake and canopy-scale photosynthetic light response: contributions from both temperature and photoperiod.

Authors:  Paul C Stoy; Amy M Trowbridge; William L Bauerle
Journal:  Photosynth Res       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  CO2 Sensing and CO2 Regulation of Stomatal Conductance: Advances and Open Questions.

Authors:  Cawas B Engineer; Mimi Hashimoto-Sugimoto; Juntaro Negi; Maria Israelsson-Nordström; Tamar Azoulay-Shemer; Wouter-Jan Rappel; Koh Iba; Julian I Schroeder
Journal:  Trends Plant Sci       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 18.313

4.  Soil Respiration in European Grasslands in Relation to Climate and Assimilate Supply.

Authors:  Michael Bahn; Mirco Rodeghiero; Margaret Anderson-Dunn; Sabina Dore; Cristina Gimeno; Matthias Drösler; Michael Williams; Christof Ammann; Frank Berninger; Chris Flechard; Stephanie Jones; Manuela Balzarolo; Suresh Kumar; Christian Newesely; Tibor Priwitzer; Antonio Raschi; Rolf Siegwolf; Sanna Susiluoto; John Tenhunen; Georg Wohlfahrt; Alexander Cernusca
Journal:  Ecosystems       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.217

5.  Modeling gross primary production of agro-forestry ecosystems by assimilation of satellite-derived information in a process-based model.

Authors:  Mirco Migliavacca; Michele Meroni; Lorenzo Busetto; Roberto Colombo; Terenzio Zenone; Giorgio Matteucci; Giovanni Manca; Guenther Seufert
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 3.576

6.  The role of terrestrial productivity and hydrology in regulating aquatic dissolved organic carbon concentrations in boreal catchments.

Authors:  Xudan Zhu; Liang Chen; Jukka Pumpanen; Anne Ojala; John Zobitz; Xuan Zhou; Hjalmar Laudon; Marjo Palviainen; Kimmo Neitola; Frank Berninger
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2022-01-30       Impact factor: 13.211

7.  Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites.

Authors:  Martin G De Kauwe; Belinda E Medlyn; Sönke Zaehle; Anthony P Walker; Michael C Dietze; Ying-Ping Wang; Yiqi Luo; Atul K Jain; Bassil El-Masri; Thomas Hickler; David Wårlind; Ensheng Weng; William J Parton; Peter E Thornton; Shusen Wang; I Colin Prentice; Shinichi Asao; Benjamin Smith; Heather R McCarthy; Colleen M Iversen; Paul J Hanson; Jeffrey M Warren; Ram Oren; Richard J Norby
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 10.151

8.  The sensitivity of the forest carbon budget shifts across processes along with stand development and climate change.

Authors:  Alessio Collalti; Peter E Thornton; Alessandro Cescatti; Angelo Rita; Marco Borghetti; Angelo Nolè; Carlo Trotta; Philippe Ciais; Giorgio Matteucci
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 4.657

9.  A fully integrated isoprenoid emissions model coupling emissions to photosynthetic characteristics.

Authors:  Rüdiger Grote; Catherine Morfopoulos; Ülo Niinemets; Zhihong Sun; Trevor F Keenan; Federica Pacifico; Tim Butler
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2014-05-11       Impact factor: 7.228

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.