Combining multiple statistical methods to evaluate the performance of process-based vegetation models across three forest stands

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage153
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue4eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.lastPage172
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume63
dc.contributor.authorHoremans, Joanna A.
dc.contributor.authorHenrot, Alexandra
dc.contributor.authorDelire, Christine
dc.contributor.authorKollas, Chris
dc.contributor.authorLasch-Born, Petra
dc.contributor.authorReyer, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorSuckow, Felicitas
dc.contributor.authorFrançois, Louis
dc.contributor.authorCeulemans, Reinhart
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-25T09:40:56Z
dc.date.available2019-06-26T17:18:50Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractProcess-based vegetation models are crucial tools to better understand biosphere-atmosphere exchanges and eco-physiological responses to climate change. In this contribution the performance of two global dynamic vegetation models, i.e. CARAIB and ISBACC, and one stand-scale forest model, i.e. 4C, was compared to long-term observed net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEE) time series from eddy covariance monitoring stations at three old-grown European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest stands. Residual analysis, wavelet analysis and singular spectrum analysis were used beside conventional scalar statistical measures to assess model performance with the aim of defining future targets for model improvement. We found that the most important errors for all three models occurred at the edges of the observed NEE distribution and the model errors were correlated with environmental variables on a daily scale. These observations point to possible projection issues under more extreme future climate conditions. Recurrent patterns in the residuals over the course of the year were linked to the approach to simulate phenology and physiological evolution during leaf development and senescence. Substantial model errors occurred on the multi-annual time scale, possibly caused by the lack of inclusion of management actions and disturbances. Other crucial processes defined were the forest structure and the vertical light partitioning through the canopy. Further, model errors were shown not to be transmitted from one time scale to another. We proved that models should be evaluated across multiple sites, preferably using multiple evaluation methods, to identify processes that request reconsideration.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.34657/848
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/615
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherBerlin : de Gruytereng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1515/forj-2017-0025
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCentral European Forestry Journal, Volume 63, Issue 4, Page 153-172eng
dc.rights.licenseCC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/eng
dc.subjectFagus sylvaticaeng
dc.subjectNet ecosystem carbon exchangeeng
dc.subjectResidual analysiseng
dc.subjectSingular spectrum analysiseng
dc.subjectWaveletseng
dc.subject.ddc550eng
dc.titleCombining multiple statistical methods to evaluate the performance of process-based vegetation models across three forest standseng
dc.typearticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleCentral European Forestry Journaleng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorPIKeng
wgl.subjectGeowissenschafteneng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Combining multiple statistical methods to evaluate.pdf
Size:
910.61 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: