Uncertainties of modeling gross primary productivity over Europe: A systematic study on the effects of using different drivers and terrestrial biosphere models

Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2007, Pages

  Jung, Martin ^a,b   Vetter, Mona ^a   Herold, Martin ^c   Churkina, Galina ^a   Reichstein, Markus ^a   Zaehle, Soenke ^d   Ciais, Philippe ^d   Viovy, Nicolas ^d   Bondeau, Alberte ^e   Chen, Youmin ^a   Trusilova, Kristina ^a,b   Feser, Frauke ^f   Heimann, Martin ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOGEOCHEMISTRY   (Germany)

^b INTERNATIONAL MAX PLANCK RESEARCH SCHOOL ON EARTH SYSTEM MODELLING   (Germany)

^c FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^d CNRS   (France)

^e POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^f INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY; BIOSPHERICS; CARBON; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NITROGEN; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ANNUAL VARIATION; BIOSPHERE; CANOPY REFLECTANCE; CARBON CYCLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; GLOBAL CLIMATE; LAND COVER; LIGHT USE EFFICIENCY; PHOTOSYNTHETICALLY ACTIVE RADIATION; PRIMARY PRODUCTION; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 34547945853     PISSN: 08866236     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2006GB002915     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Anten, N. P. R. (2002), Evolutionarily stable leaf area production in plant populations, J. Theor. Biol., 217(1), 15-32.
2. Anten, N. P. R. (2005), Optimal photosynthetic characteristics of individual plants in vegetation stands and implications for species coexistence, Ann. Bot., 95(3), 497-508.
3. Bartholome, E., and A. S. Belward (2005), GLC2000: A new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data, Int. J. Remote Sens., 26(9), 1959-1977.
4. Beer, C. (2005), Climatic causes of the evolution of biomass of Russian forests between 1981 and 1999: An analysis by using a dynamical global vegetation model which is adopted to the boreal zone and constrained by satellite products, Ph. D. dissertation, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitaet, Jena, Germany.
5. Bondeau, A., D. W. Kicklighter, and J. Kaduk (1999), Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): Importance of vegetation structure on seasonal NPP estimates, Global Change Biol., 5, 35-45.
6. Bondeau, A., et al. (2007), Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance, Global Change Biol., 13(3), 679-706.
7. 2 increase and climate change during the last 150 years, Global Change Biol., 10(8), 1253-1266.
8. Chen, Y., G. Churkina, and M. Heimann (2007), A comparison of regional climate variables between various data sources, Tech. Rep., 8, 36 pp., Max-Planck-Inst. für Biogeochem., Jena, Germany.
9. Churkina, G., and S. W. Running (1998), Contrasting climatic controls on the estimated productivity of global terrestrial biomes, Ecosystems, 1(2), 206-215.
10. Churkina, G., et al. (2003), Analyzing the ecosystem carbon dynamics of four European coniferous forests using a biogeochemistry model, Ecosystems, 6(2), 168-184.
11. Cramer, W., et al. (1999), Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): Overview and key results, Global Change Biol., 5, 1-15.
12. 2 and climate change: Results from six dynamic global vegetation models, Global Change Biol., 7(4), 357-373.
13. de Rosnay, P., and J. Polcher (1998), Modelling root water uptake in a complex land surface scheme coupled to a GCM, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 2(2-3), 239-255.
14. Ducoudre, N. I., K. Laval, and A. Perrier (1993), Sechiba, a new set of parameterizations; of the hydrologic exchanges at the land atmosphere interface within the LMD Atmospheric General-Circulation Model, J. Clim., 6(2), 248-273.
15. European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) (2000), ERA-40 project plan, Eur. Cent. for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, U.K. (Available at http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/Project/ Plan/Projectℏan_TOC.html.)
16. Feser, F., R. Weisse, and H. von Storch (2001), Multi-decadal atmospheric modeling for Europe yields multi-purpose data, Eos Trans. AGU, 82, 305-310.
17. Friedl, M. A., et al. (2002), Global land cover mapping from MODIS: Algorithms and early results, Remote Sens. Environ., 83(1-2), 287-302.
18. Friedlingstein, P., G. Joel, C. B. Field, and I. Fung (1998), Toward an allocation scheme for global terrestrial carbon models, Global Change Biol., 5, 755-770.
19. Giri, C., Z. Zhu, and B. Reed (2005), A comparative analysis of the Global Land Cover 2000 and MODIS land cover data sets, Remote Sens. Environ., 94, 123-132.
20. Gobron, N., et al. (2006), Evaluation of fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation products for different canopy radiation transfer regimes: Methodology and results using Joint Research Center products derived from SeaWiFS against ground-based estimations, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D13110, doi:10.1029/2005JD006511.
21. Haxeltine, A., I. C. Prentice, and D. L. Creswell (1996), A coupled carbon and water flux model to predict vegetation structure, J. Vegetation Sci., 7(5), 651-666.
22. Herold, M., et al. (2006), A joint initiative for harmonization and validation of land cover datasets, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 44(7), 1719-1727.
23. Hicke, J. A. (2005), NCEP and GISS solar radiation data sets available for ecosystem modeling: Description, differences, and impacts on net primary production, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19, GB2006, doi: 10. 1029/2004GI3002391.
24. Hikosaka, K. (2005), Leaf canopy as a dynamic system: Ecophysiology and optimality in leaf turnover, Ann. Bot., 95(3), 521-533.
25. Jacob, D., and R. Podzun (1997), Sensitivity studies with the regional climate model REMO, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 63(1-2), 119-129.
26. Jung, M., K. Henkel, M. Herold, and G. Churkina (2006), Exploiting synergies of global land cover products for carbon cycle modelling, Remote Sens. Environ., 101(4), 534-553.
27. Jung, M., et al. (2007), Assessing the ability of three land ecosystem models to simulate gross carbon uptake of forests from boreal to Mediterranean climate in Europe, Biogeosci. Discuss., 4, 1353-1375.
28. Kalnay, E., et al. (1996), The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77(3), 437-471.
29. Kaplan, J. O., et al. (2003), Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 2. Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future projections, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D19), 8171, doi:10.1029/2002JD002559.
30. Kimball, J. S., M. A. White, and S. W. Running (1997), BIOME-BGC simulations of stand hydrologic processes for BOREAS, J. Geophys. Res., 102(D24), 29,043-29,051.
31. Kimball, J. S., S. W. Running, and S. S. Saatchi (1999), Sensitivity of boreal forest regional water flux and net primary production simulations to sub-grid-scale land cover complexity, J. Geophys. Res., 104(D22), 27,789-27,801.
32. Kimball, J. S., A. R. Keyser, S. W. Running, and S. S. Saatchi (2000), Regional assessment of boreal forest productivity using an ecological process model and remote sensing parameter maps, Tree Physiol., 20(11), 761-775.
33. Kirschbaum, M. U. F., G. Simioni, B. Medlyn, and R. E. McMurtrie (2003), On the importance of including soil nutrient feedback effects for predicting ecosystem carbon exchange, Functional Plant Biol., 30, 223-237.
34. Kistler, R., et al. (2001), The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: Monthly means, [CD-ROM and documentation], Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82(2), 247-267.
35. Knorr, W., and M. Heimann (2001), Uncertainties in global terrestrial biosphere modelling: 2. Global constraints for a process-based vegetation model, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 15(1), 227-246.
36. 2O fluxes at six forest sites in Europe, Global Change Biol., 8(3), 213-230.
37. Krinner, G., N. Viovy, N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, J. Ogée, J. Polcher, P. Friedlingstein, P. Ciais, S. Sitch, and I. C. Prentice (2005), A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19, GB1015, doi:10.1029/2003GB002199.
38. Lucht, W., et al. (2002), Climatic control of the high-latitude vegetation greening trend and Pinatubo effect, Science, 296(5573), 1687-1689.
39. Magnani, F., et al. (2007), The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests, Nature, 447(7146), 849-851.
40. Mayaux, P., et al. (2006), Validation of the global land cover 2000 map, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens., 44(7), 1728-1739.
41. 2, climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 15(1), 193-206.
42. Moorcroft, P. R. (2006), How close are we to a predictive science of the biosphere?, Trends Ecol. Evol., 21(7), 400-407.
43. Morales, P., et al. (2005), Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes, Global Change Biol., 11(12), 2211-2233.
44. Prentice, I. C., et al. (1992), A global biome model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate, J. Biogeogr, 19(2), 117-134.
45. Prentice, I. C., M. Heimann, and S. Sitch (2000), The carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere: Ecosystem models and atmospheric observations, Ecol. Appl., 10(6), 1553-1573.
46. Reichstein, M., et al. (2007), Determinants of terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance inferred from European eddy covariance flux sites, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01402, doi:10.1029/2006GL027880.
47. Roxburgh, S. H., et al. (2004), A critical overview of model estimates of net primary productivity for the Australian continent, Functional Plant Biol., 31(11), 1043-1059.
48. Ruimy, A., L. Kergoat, and A. Bondeau (1999), Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): Analysis of differences in light absorption and light-use efficiency, Global Change Biol., 5, 56-64.
49. Running, S. W. (1994), Testing forest-BGC ecosystem process simulations across a climatic gradient in Oregon, Ecol. Appl., 4(2), 238-247.
50. Running, S. W., and S. I Gower (1991), Forest-BGC, a general-model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications: 2. Dynamic carbon allocation and nitrogen budgets, Tree Physiol., 9(1-2), 147-160.
51. Running, S. W., and E. R. J. Hunt (1993), Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an application for the global scale, in Scaling Physiological Processes: Leaf to Globe, edited by J. R. Ehleringer and C. B. Field, pp. 141-158, Elsevier, New York.
52. Scepan, J. (1999), Thematic validation of high-resolution global land-cover data sets, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 65(9), 1051-1060.
53. Schaphoff, S., et al. (2006), Terrestrial biosphere carbon storage under alternative climate projections, Clim. Change, 74(1-3), 97-122.
54. Shipley, B., M. J. Lechoweicz, I. Wright and P. B. Reich (2006), Fundamental trade-offs generating the worldwide leaf economics spectrum, Ecology, 87(3), 535-541.
55. Sitch, S., et al. (2003), Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model, Global Change Biol., 9(2), 161-185.
56. 2 and climate, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19, G132013, doi: 10.1029/2004GB002311.
57. Thornton, P. (1998), Regional ecosystem simulation: Combining surface-and satellite-based observations to study linkages between terrestrial energy and mass budgets, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula.
58. Turner, D. P., W. B. Cohen, and R. E. Kennedy (2000), Alternative spatial resolutions and estimation of carbon flux over a managed forest landscape in western Oregon, Landscape Ecol., 15(5), 441-452.
59. Vetter, M., et al. (2005), Partitioning direct and indirect human-induced effects on carbon sequestration of managed coniferous forests using model simulations and forest inventories, Global Change Biol., 11(5), 810-827.
60. Vetter, M., et al. (2007), Analyzing the causes and spatial pattern of the European 2003 carbon flux anomaly in Europe using seven models, Biogeosci. Discuss., 4, 1201-1240.
61. 2 sensitivity of the SECHIBA-BGC coupled SVAT-BGC model, Phys. Chem. Earth, 21, 489-497.
62. White, M. A., P. E. Thornton, S. W. Running, and R. R. Nemani (2000), Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BlOME-BGC Terrestrial Ecosystem Model: Net primary production controls, Earth Interact, 4(3), doi:10.1175/1087-3562 (2000)004<0003:PASAOT>2.0.CO;2.
63. Wright, I. J., et al. (2004), Leaf trait relationships in Australian plant species, Functional Plant Biol., 31(5), 551-558.
64. Zaehle, S., S. Sitch, B. Smith, and F. Hatterman (2005), Effects of parameter uncertainties on the modeling of terrestrial biosphere dynamics, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19, GB3020, doi:10.1029/ 2004GB002395.
65. Zhao, M., S. W. Running, and R. R. Nemani (2006), Sensitivity of Moderate Resolution lmaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) terrestrial primary production to the accuracy of meteorological reanalyses, J. Geophys. Res., 111, G01002, doi:10.1029/2004JG000004.