Literature DB >> 29284189

Underestimation of N2 O emissions in a comparison of the DayCent, DNDC, and EPIC models.

Richard K Gaillard1, Curtis D Jones2, Pete Ingraham3, Sarah Collier4,5, Roberto Cesar Izaurralde2,6, William Jokela7, William Osterholz5, William Salas3, Peter Vadas7, Matthew D Ruark4.   

Abstract

Process-based models are increasingly used to study agroecosystem interactions and N2 O emissions from agricultural fields. The widespread use of these models to conduct research and inform policy benefits from periodic model comparisons that assess the state of agroecosystem modeling and indicate areas for model improvement. This work provides an evaluation of simulated N2 O flux from three process-based models: DayCent, DNDC, and EPIC. The models were calibrated and validated using data collected from two research sites over five years that represent cropping systems and nitrogen fertilizer management strategies common to dairy cropping systems. We also evaluated the use of a multi-model ensemble strategy, which inconsistently outperformed individual model estimations. Regression analysis indicated a cross-model bias to underestimate high magnitude daily and cumulative N2 O flux. Model estimations of observed soil temperature and water content did not sufficiently explain model underestimations, and we found significant variation in model estimates of heterotrophic respiration, denitrification, soil NH4+ , and soil NO3- , which may indicate that additional types of observed data are required to evaluate model performance and possible biases. Our results suggest a bias in the model estimation of N2 O flux from agroecosystems that limits the extension of models beyond calibration and as instruments of policy development. This highlights a growing need for the modeling and measurement communities to collaborate in the collection and analysis of the data necessary to improve models and coordinate future development.
© 2017 by the Ecological Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNDC; DayCent; EPIC; model comparison; nitrous oxide; process-based model

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29284189     DOI: 10.1002/eap.1674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  3 in total

1.  Exploring the effects of land management change on productivity, carbon and nutrient balance: Application of an Ensemble Modelling Approach to the upper River Taw observatory, UK.

Authors:  Kirsty L Hassall; Kevin Coleman; Prakash N Dixit; Steve J Granger; Yusheng Zhang; Ryan T Sharp; Lianhai Wu; Andrew P Whitmore; Goetz M Richter; Adrian L Collins; Alice E Milne
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 10.753

2.  How Modelers Model: the Overlooked Social and Human Dimensions in Model Intercomparison Studies.

Authors:  Fabrizio Albanito; David McBey; Matthew Harrison; Pete Smith; Fiona Ehrhardt; Arti Bhatia; Gianni Bellocchi; Lorenzo Brilli; Marco Carozzi; Karen Christie; Jordi Doltra; Christopher Dorich; Luca Doro; Peter Grace; Brian Grant; Joël Léonard; Mark Liebig; Cameron Ludemann; Raphael Martin; Elizabeth Meier; Rachelle Meyer; Massimiliano De Antoni Migliorati; Vasileios Myrgiotis; Sylvie Recous; Renáta Sándor; Val Snow; Jean-François Soussana; Ward N Smith; Nuala Fitton
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 11.357

3.  Century-long changes and drivers of soil nitrous oxide (N2 O) emissions across the contiguous United States.

Authors:  Chaoqun Lu; Zhen Yu; Jien Zhang; Peiyu Cao; Hanqin Tian; Cynthia Nevison
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 13.211

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.