Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modeling: 1. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis with a new photosynthesis and energy balance scheme
Modeling the terrestrial biosphere's carbon exchanges constitutes a key tool for investigation of the global carbon cycle, which has lead to the recent development of numerous terrestrial biosphere models. However, as demonstrated by recent intercomparison studies, results of plant carbon uptak...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global biogeochemical cycles 2001-03, Vol.15 (1), p.207-225 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 225 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 207 |
container_title | Global biogeochemical cycles |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Knorr, Wolfgang Heimann, Martin |
description | Modeling the terrestrial biosphere's carbon exchanges constitutes a key tool for investigation of the global carbon cycle, which has lead to the recent development of numerous terrestrial biosphere models. However, as demonstrated by recent intercomparison studies, results of plant carbon uptake, expressed as net primary productivity (NPP), still diverge to a large degree. Here, we address the question of uncertainty by conducting a series of sensitivity tests with a single, process‐based model, the Biosphere Energy‐Transfer Hydrology (BETHY) scheme. We calculate NPP globally for a standard model setup and various alternative model setups representing either changes in modeling strategy or approximate uncertainties of the most important model parameters. The results show that estimated uncertainties of many process parameters are still too large for reliable predictions of global NPP. The largest uncertainties come from plant respiration, photosynthesis and soil water storage. The surface radiation balance and day‐to‐day variations in weather, often not included into terrestrial vegetation models, are also found to contribute significantly to overall uncertainties, while stomatal behavior, the aerodynamic coupling of vegetation and atmosphere, and the choice of the vegetation map turn out to be relatively unimportant. A further comparison with field measurements of NPP suggests that such data are too unreliable for validating biosphere model predictions. We conclude that the inherent uncertainties in process‐oriented biosphere modeling are able to explain the discrepancies that have occurred when comparing the results of different models. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/1998GB001059 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1520379570</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1520379570</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3343-dafd34297402dd2d44f12111573241c94467b5843310a58217379c1faa5996b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9u1DAQxiMEEkvhxgNY4sKBtP6bxNzaFSyVqiJEgaPlTSYbQ2KnHrdLnoMXxqutKk6cZqT5fd_MN0XxmtFTRrk-Y1o3mwtKGVX6SbFiWspScy6fFivaNFVZcVE9L14g_syMVEqvij_ffAsxWeeTAyTOk90YtnYkCWIETNHlfusCzgNEIFPoYHR-956wU3JO2jDNEQbw6O6B4KEmd-_SQqy344IOyd6lgVjiYU_mIaSAi08DHCbWdwQ8xN1C8kKb7yDYDjDBy-JZb0eEVw_1pLj5-OFm_am8-ry5XJ9fla0QUpSd7Tshua4l5V3HOyl7xhljqhZcsjaHr-qtaqQQjFrVcFaLWrest1ZpXW3FSfH2aDvHcHuXs5rJYQtjPgXCHRqmOM0KVdOMvjuibQyIEXozRzfZuBhGzeH15t_XZ_zNg7PF1o59zOEcPmq0kprXmaJHau9GWP7raDYX66oSWVIeJQ4T_H6U2PjLVDmdMj-uN2b99ZpX3zUzX8RfQxOhjw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1520379570</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modeling: 1. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis with a new photosynthesis and energy balance scheme</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Knorr, Wolfgang ; Heimann, Martin</creator><creatorcontrib>Knorr, Wolfgang ; Heimann, Martin</creatorcontrib><description>Modeling the terrestrial biosphere's carbon exchanges constitutes a key tool for investigation of the global carbon cycle, which has lead to the recent development of numerous terrestrial biosphere models. However, as demonstrated by recent intercomparison studies, results of plant carbon uptake, expressed as net primary productivity (NPP), still diverge to a large degree. Here, we address the question of uncertainty by conducting a series of sensitivity tests with a single, process‐based model, the Biosphere Energy‐Transfer Hydrology (BETHY) scheme. We calculate NPP globally for a standard model setup and various alternative model setups representing either changes in modeling strategy or approximate uncertainties of the most important model parameters. The results show that estimated uncertainties of many process parameters are still too large for reliable predictions of global NPP. The largest uncertainties come from plant respiration, photosynthesis and soil water storage. The surface radiation balance and day‐to‐day variations in weather, often not included into terrestrial vegetation models, are also found to contribute significantly to overall uncertainties, while stomatal behavior, the aerodynamic coupling of vegetation and atmosphere, and the choice of the vegetation map turn out to be relatively unimportant. A further comparison with field measurements of NPP suggests that such data are too unreliable for validating biosphere model predictions. We conclude that the inherent uncertainties in process‐oriented biosphere modeling are able to explain the discrepancies that have occurred when comparing the results of different models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0886-6236</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-9224</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/1998GB001059</identifier><identifier>CODEN: GBCYEP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Earth sciences ; Earth, ocean, space ; Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics ; Exact sciences and technology ; Marine and continental quaternary ; Pollution, environment geology ; Surficial geology</subject><ispartof>Global biogeochemical cycles, 2001-03, Vol.15 (1), p.207-225</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2001 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3343-dafd34297402dd2d44f12111573241c94467b5843310a58217379c1faa5996b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3343-dafd34297402dd2d44f12111573241c94467b5843310a58217379c1faa5996b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F1998GB001059$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F1998GB001059$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,11514,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46468,46833,46892</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=954927$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Knorr, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heimann, Martin</creatorcontrib><title>Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modeling: 1. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis with a new photosynthesis and energy balance scheme</title><title>Global biogeochemical cycles</title><addtitle>Global Biogeochem. Cycles</addtitle><description>Modeling the terrestrial biosphere's carbon exchanges constitutes a key tool for investigation of the global carbon cycle, which has lead to the recent development of numerous terrestrial biosphere models. However, as demonstrated by recent intercomparison studies, results of plant carbon uptake, expressed as net primary productivity (NPP), still diverge to a large degree. Here, we address the question of uncertainty by conducting a series of sensitivity tests with a single, process‐based model, the Biosphere Energy‐Transfer Hydrology (BETHY) scheme. We calculate NPP globally for a standard model setup and various alternative model setups representing either changes in modeling strategy or approximate uncertainties of the most important model parameters. The results show that estimated uncertainties of many process parameters are still too large for reliable predictions of global NPP. The largest uncertainties come from plant respiration, photosynthesis and soil water storage. The surface radiation balance and day‐to‐day variations in weather, often not included into terrestrial vegetation models, are also found to contribute significantly to overall uncertainties, while stomatal behavior, the aerodynamic coupling of vegetation and atmosphere, and the choice of the vegetation map turn out to be relatively unimportant. A further comparison with field measurements of NPP suggests that such data are too unreliable for validating biosphere model predictions. We conclude that the inherent uncertainties in process‐oriented biosphere modeling are able to explain the discrepancies that have occurred when comparing the results of different models.</description><subject>Earth sciences</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Marine and continental quaternary</subject><subject>Pollution, environment geology</subject><subject>Surficial geology</subject><issn>0886-6236</issn><issn>1944-9224</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM9u1DAQxiMEEkvhxgNY4sKBtP6bxNzaFSyVqiJEgaPlTSYbQ2KnHrdLnoMXxqutKk6cZqT5fd_MN0XxmtFTRrk-Y1o3mwtKGVX6SbFiWspScy6fFivaNFVZcVE9L14g_syMVEqvij_ffAsxWeeTAyTOk90YtnYkCWIETNHlfusCzgNEIFPoYHR-956wU3JO2jDNEQbw6O6B4KEmd-_SQqy344IOyd6lgVjiYU_mIaSAi08DHCbWdwQ8xN1C8kKb7yDYDjDBy-JZb0eEVw_1pLj5-OFm_am8-ry5XJ9fla0QUpSd7Tshua4l5V3HOyl7xhljqhZcsjaHr-qtaqQQjFrVcFaLWrest1ZpXW3FSfH2aDvHcHuXs5rJYQtjPgXCHRqmOM0KVdOMvjuibQyIEXozRzfZuBhGzeH15t_XZ_zNg7PF1o59zOEcPmq0kprXmaJHau9GWP7raDYX66oSWVIeJQ4T_H6U2PjLVDmdMj-uN2b99ZpX3zUzX8RfQxOhjw</recordid><startdate>200103</startdate><enddate>200103</enddate><creator>Knorr, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Heimann, Martin</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200103</creationdate><title>Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modeling: 1. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis with a new photosynthesis and energy balance scheme</title><author>Knorr, Wolfgang ; Heimann, Martin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3343-dafd34297402dd2d44f12111573241c94467b5843310a58217379c1faa5996b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Earth sciences</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Marine and continental quaternary</topic><topic>Pollution, environment geology</topic><topic>Surficial geology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Knorr, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heimann, Martin</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Global biogeochemical cycles</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Knorr, Wolfgang</au><au>Heimann, Martin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modeling: 1. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis with a new photosynthesis and energy balance scheme</atitle><jtitle>Global biogeochemical cycles</jtitle><addtitle>Global Biogeochem. Cycles</addtitle><date>2001-03</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>207</spage><epage>225</epage><pages>207-225</pages><issn>0886-6236</issn><eissn>1944-9224</eissn><coden>GBCYEP</coden><abstract>Modeling the terrestrial biosphere's carbon exchanges constitutes a key tool for investigation of the global carbon cycle, which has lead to the recent development of numerous terrestrial biosphere models. However, as demonstrated by recent intercomparison studies, results of plant carbon uptake, expressed as net primary productivity (NPP), still diverge to a large degree. Here, we address the question of uncertainty by conducting a series of sensitivity tests with a single, process‐based model, the Biosphere Energy‐Transfer Hydrology (BETHY) scheme. We calculate NPP globally for a standard model setup and various alternative model setups representing either changes in modeling strategy or approximate uncertainties of the most important model parameters. The results show that estimated uncertainties of many process parameters are still too large for reliable predictions of global NPP. The largest uncertainties come from plant respiration, photosynthesis and soil water storage. The surface radiation balance and day‐to‐day variations in weather, often not included into terrestrial vegetation models, are also found to contribute significantly to overall uncertainties, while stomatal behavior, the aerodynamic coupling of vegetation and atmosphere, and the choice of the vegetation map turn out to be relatively unimportant. A further comparison with field measurements of NPP suggests that such data are too unreliable for validating biosphere model predictions. We conclude that the inherent uncertainties in process‐oriented biosphere modeling are able to explain the discrepancies that have occurred when comparing the results of different models.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/1998GB001059</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0886-6236 |
ispartof | Global biogeochemical cycles, 2001-03, Vol.15 (1), p.207-225 |
issn | 0886-6236 1944-9224 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1520379570 |
source | Wiley Journals; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
subjects | Earth sciences Earth, ocean, space Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics Exact sciences and technology Marine and continental quaternary Pollution, environment geology Surficial geology |
title | Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modeling: 1. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis with a new photosynthesis and energy balance scheme |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T03%3A09%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Uncertainties%20in%20global%20terrestrial%20biosphere%20modeling:%201.%20A%20comprehensive%20sensitivity%20analysis%20with%20a%20new%20photosynthesis%20and%20energy%20balance%20scheme&rft.jtitle=Global%20biogeochemical%20cycles&rft.au=Knorr,%20Wolfgang&rft.date=2001-03&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=225&rft.pages=207-225&rft.issn=0886-6236&rft.eissn=1944-9224&rft.coden=GBCYEP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/1998GB001059&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1520379570%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1520379570&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |