Filters

More filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20243
Reset filters

Settings

DDC: 550 × Subject: ecosystem modeling ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Analyzing the causes and spatial pattern of the European 2003 carbon flux anomaly using seven models
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2008) Vetter, M.; Churkina, G.; Jung, M.; Reichstein, M.; Zaehle, S.; Bondeau, A.; Chen, Y.; Ciais, P.; Feser, F.; Freibauer, A.; Geyer, R.; Jones, C.; Papale, D.; Tenhunen, J.; Tomelleri, E.; Trusilova, K.; Viovy, N.; Heimann, M.
    Globally, the year 2003 is associated with one of the largest atmospheric CO2 rises on record. In the same year, Europe experienced an anomalously strong flux of CO2 from the land to the atmosphere associated with an exceptionally dry and hot summer in Western and Central Europe. In this study we analyze the magnitude of this carbon flux anomaly and key driving ecosystem processes using simulations of seven terrestrial ecosystem models of different complexity and types (process-oriented and diagnostic). We address the following questions: (1) how large were deviations in the net European carbon flux in 2003 relative to a short-term baseline (1998–2002) and to longer-term variations in annual fluxes (1980 to 2005), (2) which European regions exhibited the largest changes in carbon fluxes during the growing season 2003, and (3) which ecosystem processes controlled the carbon balance anomaly . In most models the prominence of 2003 anomaly in carbon fluxes declined with lengthening of the reference period from one year to 16 years. The 2003 anomaly for annual net carbon fluxes ranged between 0.35 and –0.63 Pg C for a reference period of one year and between 0.17 and –0.37 Pg C for a reference period of 16 years for the whole Europe. In Western and Central Europe, the anomaly in simulated net ecosystem productivity (NEP) over the growing season in 2003 was outside the 1σ variance bound of the carbon flux anomalies for 1980–2005 in all models. The estimated anomaly in net carbon flux ranged between –42 and –158 Tg C for Western Europe and between 24 and –129 Tg C for Central Europe depending on the model used. All models responded to a dipole pattern of the climate anomaly in 2003. In Western and Central Europe NEP was reduced due to heat and drought. In contrast, lower than normal temperatures and higher air humidity decreased NEP over Northeastern Europe. While models agree on the sign of changes in simulated NEP and gross primary productivity in 2003 over Western and Central Europe, models diverge in the estimates of anomalies in ecosystem respiration. Except for two process models which simulate respiration increase, most models simulated a decrease in ecosystem respiration in 2003. The diagnostic models showed a weaker decrease in ecosystem respiration than the process-oriented models. Based on the multi-model simulations we estimated the total carbon flux anomaly over the 2003 growing season in Europe to range between –0.02 and –0.27 Pg C relative to the net carbon flux in 1998–2002.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios
    (Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2018) Kim, HyeJin; Rosa, Isabel M. D.; Alkemade, Rob; Leadley, Paul; Hurtt, George; Popp, Alexander; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Anthoni, Peter; Arneth, Almut; Baisero, Daniele; Caton, Emma; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Chini, Louise; De Palma, Adriana; Di Fulvio, Fulvio; Di Marco, Moreno; Espinoza, Felipe; Ferrier, Simon; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Gonzalez, Ricardo E.; Gueguen, Maya; Guerra, Carlos; Harfoot, Mike; Harwood, Thomas D.; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Haverd, Vanessa; Havlík, Petr; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hill, Samantha L. L.; Hirata, Akiko; Hoskins, Andrew J.; Janse, Jan H.; Jetz, Walter; Johnson, Justin A.; Krause, Andreas; Leclère, David; Martins, Ines S.; Matsui, Tetsuya; Merow, Cory; Obersteiner, Michael; Ohashi, Haruka; Poulter, Benjamin; Purvis, Andy; Quesada, Benjamin; Rondinini, Carlo; Schipper, Aafke M.; Sharp, Richard; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Thuiller, Wilfried; Titeux, Nicolas; Visconti, Piero; Ware, Christopher; Wolf, Florian; Pereira, Henrique M.
    To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land-use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e., nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)-SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP3xRCP6.0, SSP5xRCP8.6-to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenario selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem services models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modeling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modeling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A protocol for the intercomparison of marine fishery and ecosystem models: Fish-MIP v1.0
    (Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2018) Tittensor, D.P.; Eddy, T.D.; Lotze, H.K.; Galbraith, E.D.; Cheung, W.; Barange, M.; Blanchard, J.L.; Bopp, L.; Bryndum-Buchholz, A.; Büchner, M.; Bulman, C.; Carozza, D.A.; Christensen, V.; Coll, M.; Dunne, J.P.; Fernandes, J.A.; Fulton, E.A.; Hobday, A.J.; Huber, V.; Jennings, S.; Jones, M.; Lehodey, P.; Link, J.S.; MacKinson, S.; Maury, O.; Niiranen, S.; Oliveros-Ramos, R.; Roy, T.; Schewe, J.; Shin, Y.-J.; Silva, T.; Stock, C.A.; Steenbeek, J.; Underwood, P.J.; Volkholz, J.; Watson, J.R.; Walker, N.D.
    Model intercomparison studies in the climate and Earth sciences communities have been crucial to building credibility and coherence for future projections. They have quantified variability among models, spurred model development, contrasted within-and among-model uncertainty, assessed model fits to historical data, and provided ensemble projections of future change under specified scenarios. Given the speed and magnitude of anthropogenic change in the marine environment and the consequent effects on food security, biodiversity, marine industries, and society, the time is ripe for similar comparisons among models of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Here, we describe the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project protocol version 1.0 (Fish-MIP v1.0), part of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP), which is a cross-sectoral network of climate impact modellers. Given the complexity of the marine ecosystem, this class of models has substantial heterogeneity of purpose, scope, theoretical underpinning, processes considered, parameterizations, resolution (grain size), and spatial extent. This heterogeneity reflects the lack of a unified understanding of the marine ecosystem and implies that the assemblage of all models is more likely to include a greater number of relevant processes than any single model. The current Fish-MIP protocol is designed to allow these heterogeneous models to be forced with common Earth System Model (ESM) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) outputs under prescribed scenarios for historic (from the 1950s) and future (to 2100) time periods; it will be adapted to CMIP phase 6 (CMIP6) in future iterations. It also describes a standardized set of outputs for each participating Fish-MIP model to produce. This enables the broad characterization of differences between and uncertainties within models and projections when assessing climate and fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems and the services they provide. The systematic generation, collation, and comparison of results from Fish-MIP will inform an understanding of the range of plausible changes in marine ecosystems and improve our capacity to define and convey the strengths and weaknesses of model-based advice on future states of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Ultimately, Fish-MIP represents a step towards bringing together the marine ecosystem modelling community to produce consistent ensemble medium-and long-term projections of marine ecosystems.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    LandInG 1.0: a toolbox to derive input datasets for terrestrial ecosystem modelling at variable resolutions from heterogeneous sources
    (Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2023) Ostberg, Sebastian; Müller, Christoph; Heinke, Jens; Schaphoff, Sibyll
    We present the Land Input Generator (LandInG) version 1.0, a new toolbox for generating input datasets for terrestrial ecosystem models (TEMs) from diverse and partially conflicting data sources. While LandInG 1.0 is applicable to process data for any TEM, it is developed specifically for the open-source dynamic global vegetation, hydrology, and crop growth model LPJmL (Lund-Potsdam-Jena with managed Land). The toolbox documents the sources and processing of data to model inputs and allows for easy changes to the spatial resolution. It is designed to make inconsistencies between different sources of data transparent so that users can make their own decisions on how to resolve these should they not be content with the default assumptions made here. As an example, we use the toolbox to create input datasets at 5 and 30 arcmin spatial resolution covering land, country, and region masks, soil, river networks, freshwater reservoirs, irrigation water distribution networks, crop-specific annual land use, fertilizer, and manure application. We focus on the toolbox describing the data processing rather than only publishing the datasets as users may want to make different choices for reconciling inconsistencies, aggregation, spatial extent, or similar. Also, new data sources or new versions of existing data become available continuously, and the toolbox approach allows for incorporating new data to stay up to date.