A hypothesis testing framework for evaluating ecosystem model performance

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 153-165

  Loehle, Craig ^a  

^a ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Error analysis; Goodness of fit; Model performance; Model testing; Sensitivity analysis; Validation

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM MODEL; ERROR ANALYSIS; MODEL PERFORMANCE; MODELLING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 0030619006     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(96)01900-X     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bartos, D.L. and Jameson, D.A., 1974. A dynamic root model. Am. Midi. Nat. 91: 499-504.
2. Blackwell, A.L. and Black well, C.C. Jr., 1983. Minimum sensitivity parameter estimation for dynamic ecosystem models. In: W.K. Lauenrott, G.V. Skogerboe and M. Flug (Editors). Analysis of Ecological Systems: State-of-the-Art in Ecological Modelling. Elsevier, Amsterdam pp. 189-194.
3. Bonan, G.B, 1993. Do biophysics and physiology matter in ecosystem models? Climat. Change 24: 281-285.
4. Botkin, D.B. and Nisbet, R.A., 1992. Forest response to climate change: effects of parameter estimation and choice of weather patterns on the reliability of projections. Climat. Change 20: 87-111.
5. Brown, T.N. and Kulasiri, D., 1996. Validating models of complex, stochastic, biological systems. Ecol. Model. 86: 129-134.
6. Cale, W G., 1988. Characterizing populations as entities in ecosystem models: problems and limitations of mass-balance modeling. Ecol. Model. 42: 89-102.
7. Carlson, D.H. and Thurow, T.L., 1996. Comprehensive evaluation of the improved SPUR model (SPUR-91). Ecol. Model. 85: 229 240.
8. Downing, D.J., Gardner, R.H. and Huffman, P.O., 1985. An examination of response-surface methodologies for uncertainty analysis in assessment models. Technometrics 27: 151-163.
9. Eiston, D.A., 1992. Sensitivity analysis in the presence of correlated parameter estimates. Ecol. Model. 64: 11-22.
10. Fedra, K., Van Strafen, G. and Bek, M.B., 1981. Uncertainty and arbitrariness in ecosystems modelling: A lake modelling example. Ecol. Model 13: 87-110.
11. Fischlin, A., Bugmann, H. and Gyalistras, D., 1995. Sensitivity of a forest ecosystem model to climate parameterization schemes. Environ. Pollut. 87: 267-282.
12. Gardner, R.H., O'Neill, R.V., Mankin, J.B. and Carney, J.H., 1981. A comparison of sensitivity analysis and error analysis based on a stream ecosystem model. Ecol. Model. 12: 173-190.
13. Gentil, S. and Blake, G., 1981. Validation of complex ecosystems models. Ecol. Model. 14: 21-38.
14. Hanson, J.D., Parton, W.J. and Innis, G.S., 1985. Plant growth and production of grassland systems: a comparison of modelling approaches. Ecol. Model. 29: 131-144.
15. Henderson-Sellers, B. and Henderson-Sellers, A., 1996. Sensitivity evaluation of environmental models using fractional factorial experimentation. Ecol. Model. 86: 291 -295.
16. Huston, M.A., 1995. Biological Diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Johnson, D.H., Conroy, M.J. and Nichols, J.D., 1985. The need for accuracy in modelling: An example. Ecol. Model. 30: 157 161.
18. Leggett, R.W. and Williams, L.R., 1981. A reliability index for models. Ecol. Model. 13: 303-312.
19. Loehle, C., 1987a. Errors of construction, evaluation, and inference: a classification of sources of error in ecological models. Ecol. Model. 36: 297 314.
20. Loehle, C., 1988b. Tree life history strategies: The role of defenses. Can. J. For. Res. 18: 209 222.
21. Loehle, C., Gladden, J. and Smith, E., 1990. An assessment methodology for successional systems: I. Null models and the regulatory framework. Environ. Manage. 14: 249-258.
22. Loehle, C. and Smith. E., 1990. An assessment methodology for successional systems: II. statistical tests and specific examples. Environ. Manage. 14: 259 268.
23. Loehle, C. and LeBlanc, D.C., 1996. Model based assessments of climate change effects on forests: a critical review. Ecol. Model. 90: 1-31.
24. Majkowski, J., Ridgeway, J.M. and Miller, D.R., 1981. Multiplicative sensitivity analysis and its role in development of simulation models. Ecol. Model. 12: 191 208.
25. Mayer, D.G. and Butler, D.G., 1993. Statistical validation. Ecol. Model. 68: 21-32.
26. Mesplé. I., Troussellier, M., Casellas, C. and Legendre, P., 1996. Evaluation of simple statistical criteria to qualify a simulation. Ecol. Model. 88: 9-18.
27. O'Neill, R.V., Gardner, R.H. and Mankin, J.B., 1980. Analysis of parameter error in a nonlinear model. Ecol. Model. 8: 297-311.
28. Pacala, S.W., Canham, C.D., Saponara, J., Silander, J.A. Jr., Kobe, R. and Ribbens, E., 1996. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis, and dynamics. Ecol. Model. 66: 1-43.
29. Power, M., 1993. The predictive validation of ecological and environmental models. Ecol. Model. 68: 33 50.
30. Reckow, K.H. and Chapra, S.C., 1983. Confirmation of water quality models. Ecol. Model. 20: 113 133.
31. Scavia, D., Powers, W.F., Canale, R.P. and Moody, J.L., 1981. Comparison of first-order error analysis and Monte Carlo simulation in time-dependent lake eutrophication models. Water Resour. Res. 17: 1051 1059.
32. Shaeffer. D.L., 1980. A model evaluation methodology applicable lo environmental assessment models. Ecol. Model. 8: 275-295.
33. Smith. E.P. and Rose. K.A., 1995. Model goodness-of-fit using regression and related techniques. Ecol. Model. 77: 49-64.
34. Summers, J.K., Wilson, H.T. and Kou, J., 1993. A method for quantifying the prediction uncertainties associated with water quality models. Ecol. Model. 65: 161 176.
35. Van der Molen, D.T. and Pinter, J., 1993. Environmental model calibration under different specifications: an application to the model SED. Ecol. Model. 68: 1 19.
36. Warwick. J.J. and Cale, W.G., 1988. Estimating model reliability using data with uncertainty. Ecol. Model. 41: 169 181.