SchwalmWilliamsSchaeferEtAl2010

Reference

Schwalm, C.R., Williams, C.A., Schaefer, K., Anderson, R., Arain, M.A., Baker, I., Barr, A., Black, T.A., Chen, G., Chen, J.M., Ciais, P., Davis, K.J., Desai, A., Dietze, M., Dragoni, D, Fischer, M.L., Flanagan, L.B., Grant, R., Gu, L., Hollinger, D., Izaurralde, R.C., Kucharik, C., Lafleur, P., Law, B.E., Li, L., Li, Z., Liu, S., Lokupitiya, E., Luo, Y., Ma, S., Margolis, H.A., Matamala, R., McCaughey, H., Monson, R.K., Oechel, W.C., Peng, C., Poulter, B., Price, D.T., Riciutto, D.M., Riley, W., Sahoo, A.K., Sprintsin, M., Sun, J., Tian, H., Tonitto, C., Verbeeck, H. and Verma, S.B. (2010) A model-data intercomparison of CO2 exchange across North America: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 115:G00H05. (URL )

Abstract

Our current understanding of terrestrial carbon processes is represented in various models used to integrate and scale measurements of CO2 exchange from remote sensing and other spatiotemporal data. Yet assessments are rarely conducted to determine how well models simulate carbon processes across vegetation types and environmental conditions. Using standardized data from the North American Carbon Program we compare observed and simulated monthly CO2 exchange from 44 eddy covariance flux towers in North America and 22 terrestrial biosphere models. The analysis period spans ∼220 site-years, 10 biomes, and includes two large-scale drought events, providing a natural experiment to evaluate model skill as a function of drought and seasonality. We evaluate models' ability to simulate the seasonal cycle of CO2 exchange using multiple model skill metrics and analyze links between model characteristics, site history, and model skill. Overall model performance was poor; the difference between observations and simulations was ∼10 times observational uncertainty, with forested ecosystems better predicted than nonforested. Model-data agreement was highest in summer and in temperate evergreen forests. In contrast, model performance declined in spring and fall, especially in ecosystems with large deciduous components, and in dry periods during the growing season. Models used across multiple biomes and sites, the mean model ensemble, and a model using assimilated parameter values showed high consistency with observations. Models with the highest skill across all biomes all used prescribed canopy phenology, calculated NEE as the difference between GPP and ecosystem respiration, and did not use a daily time step.

EndNote Format

You can import this reference in EndNote.

BibTeX-CSV Format

You can import this reference in BibTeX-CSV format.

BibTeX Format

You can copy the BibTeX entry of this reference below, orimport it directly in a software like JabRef .

@ARTICLE { SchwalmWilliamsSchaeferEtAl2010,
    AUTHOR = { Schwalm, C.R. and Williams, C.A. and Schaefer, K. and Anderson, R. and Arain, M.A. and Baker, I. and Barr, A. and Black, T.A. and Chen, G. and Chen, J.M. and Ciais, P. and Davis, K.J. and Desai, A. and Dietze, M. and Dragoni, D and Fischer, M.L. and Flanagan, L.B. and Grant, R. and Gu, L. and Hollinger, D. and Izaurralde, R.C. and Kucharik, C. and Lafleur, P. and Law, B.E. and Li, L. and Li, Z. and Liu, S. and Lokupitiya, E. and Luo, Y. and Ma, S. and Margolis, H.A. and Matamala, R. and McCaughey, H. and Monson, R.K. and Oechel, W.C. and Peng, C. and Poulter, B. and Price, D.T. and Riciutto, D.M. and Riley, W. and Sahoo, A.K. and Sprintsin, M. and Sun, J. and Tian, H. and Tonitto, C. and Verbeeck, H. and Verma, S.B. },
    TITLE = { A model-data intercomparison of CO2 exchange across North America: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis },
    JOURNAL = { Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences },
    YEAR = { 2010 },
    VOLUME = { 115 },
    PAGES = { G00H05 },
    MONTH = { dec },
    ABSTRACT = { Our current understanding of terrestrial carbon processes is represented in various models used to integrate and scale measurements of CO2 exchange from remote sensing and other spatiotemporal data. Yet assessments are rarely conducted to determine how well models simulate carbon processes across vegetation types and environmental conditions. Using standardized data from the North American Carbon Program we compare observed and simulated monthly CO2 exchange from 44 eddy covariance flux towers in North America and 22 terrestrial biosphere models. The analysis period spans ∼220 site-years, 10 biomes, and includes two large-scale drought events, providing a natural experiment to evaluate model skill as a function of drought and seasonality. We evaluate models' ability to simulate the seasonal cycle of CO2 exchange using multiple model skill metrics and analyze links between model characteristics, site history, and model skill. Overall model performance was poor; the difference between observations and simulations was ∼10 times observational uncertainty, with forested ecosystems better predicted than nonforested. Model-data agreement was highest in summer and in temperate evergreen forests. In contrast, model performance declined in spring and fall, especially in ecosystems with large deciduous components, and in dry periods during the growing season. Models used across multiple biomes and sites, the mean model ensemble, and a model using assimilated parameter values showed high consistency with observations. Models with the highest skill across all biomes all used prescribed canopy phenology, calculated NEE as the difference between GPP and ecosystem respiration, and did not use a daily time step. },
    ISSN = { 0148-0227 },
    KEYWORDS = { carbon modeling, ecosystem models, model validation, carbon exchange, drought, North American Carbon Program, 0414 Biogeosciences: Biogeochemical cycles, processes, and modeling, 0428 Biogeosciences: Carbon cycling, 1622 Global Change: Earth system modeling, 0550 Computational Geophysics: Model verification and validation, 9350 Geographic Location: North America },
    OWNER = { Luc },
    PUBLISHER = { AGU },
    TIMESTAMP = { 2011.04.27 },
    URL = { http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001229 },
}

********************************************************** ***************** Facebook Twitter *********************** **********************************************************

Abonnez-vous à
l'Infolettre du CEF!

********************************************************** ************* Écoles d'été et formation **************************** **********************************************************

Écoles d'été et formations

********************************************************** ***************** Pub - Symphonies_Boreales ****************** **********************************************************

********************************************************** ***************** Boîte à trucs *************** **********************************************************

CEF-Référence
La référence vedette !

Jérémie Alluard (2016) Les statistiques au moments de la rédaction 

  • Ce document a pour but de guider les étudiants à intégrer de manière appropriée une analyse statistique dans leur rapport de recherche.

Voir les autres...