An analytical framework to assist decision makers in the use of forest ecosystem model predictions

Environmental Modelling and Software

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 280-288

  Larocque, G R ^a   Bhatti, J S ^b   Ascough, J C ^c   Liu, J ^d   Luckai, N ^e   Mailly, D ^f   Archambault, L ^a   Gordon, A M ^g  

^a LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

^b NORTHERN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

^c U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

^d EARTH RESOURCES OBSERVATION AND SCIENCE EROS CENTER   (United States)

^e LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f MINISTÈRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DE LA FAUNE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision flow chart; Decision making; Ecosystem modelling; Forest ecosystems; Uncertainty analysis

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT; BOOTSTRAP METHOD; DECISION MAKERS; DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION; ECOSYSTEM MODELLING; FLOW CHARTS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS; MODEL OUTPUTS; MODEL SELECTION; NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; ONTARIO , CANADA;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION THEORY; ECOSYSTEMS; FLOWCHARTING; FORECASTING; FORESTRY; GRAPHIC METHODS; NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT; NUMERICAL METHODS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING;

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; ERROR ANALYSIS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; NATURAL RESOURCE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SILVICULTURE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; ECOSYSTEMS; FLOW CHARTS; FORECASTS; FORESTS; GRAPHIC METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SIMULATION;

EID: 78649854682     PISSN: 13648152     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.009     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Argent R.M. An overview of model integration for environmental applications - components, frameworks and semantics. Environ. Model. Soft. 2004, 19:219-234.
2. Bastidas L.A., Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S., Shuttleworth W., Yang Z. Sensitivity analysis of a land surface scheme using multi-criteria methods. J. Geophys. Res. 1999, 104:19481-19490.
3. Beven K.J. On undermining the science?. Hydrol. Proc. (HPToday) 2006, 20:3141-3146.
4. Beven K.J., Binley A.M. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Proc. 1992, 6:279-298.
5. Bradshaw G.A., Borders J.G. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Conserv. Ecol. 2000, 4. http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art7.
6. Brugnach M., Pahl-Wostl C., Lindenschmidt K.E., Janssen J.A.E.B., Filatova T., Mouton A., Holtz G., van der Keur P., Gaber N. Complexity and uncertainty: rethinking the modelling activity. Environmental Modelling, Software and Decision Support 2008, 49-68. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.J. Jakeman, A.A. Voinov, A.E. Rizzoli, S.H. Chen (Eds.).
7. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2002, Springer, New York, NY, 488 pp. second ed.
8. Campolongo F., Cariboni J., Saltelli A. An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ. Model. Soft. 2007, 22(10):1509-1518.
9. Cochran M. Sampling Technique 1977, Wiley, New York. third ed.
10. Covington W.W. Changes in forest floor organic matter and nutrient content following clear cutting in northern hardwoods. Ecology 1981, 62:41-48.
11. Crome F.J.H., Thomas M.R., Moore L.A. A novel Bayesian approach to assessing impacts of rain forest logging. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 6:1104-1123.
12. Dennis B. Discussion: should ecologists become Bayesians?. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 6:1095-1103.
13. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 1979, 7:1-26.
14. Efron B., Tibshirani R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap 1993, Chapman & Hall, New York, N.Y.
15. Failing L., Horn G., Higgins P. Using expert judgement and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9(1):13.
16. Frey H.C., Patil R. Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Anal. 2002, 22(3):553-577.
17. Giupponi C. Decision support systems for implementing the European water framework directive: the MULINO approach. Environ. Model. Soft. 2007, 22:248-258.
18. Gregory R., Failing L., Higgins P. Adaptive management and environmental decision making: a case study application to water use planning. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58(2):434-447.
19. Gupta H.V., Beven K.J., Wagener T. Model calibration and uncertainty estimation. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. M.G. Anderson (Ed.).
20. Harr M.E. Probabilistic estimates for multivariate analysis. Appl. Math. Model. 1989, 13:313-319.
21. Helton J.C., Davis F.J. Latin hypercube sampling and propagation of uncertainty in analysis of complex systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2003, 81(1):23-69.
22. Helton J.C., Johnson J.D., Sallaberry C.J., Storlie C.B. Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2006, 91(10-11):1175-1209.
23. IPCC 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme 2006, IGES, Japan. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe (Eds.).
24. Jakeman A.J., Chen S.H., Rizzoli A.E., Voinov A.A. Modelling and software as instruments for advancing sustainability. Environmental Modelling, Software and Decision Support 2008, 1-13. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.J. Jakeman, A.A. Voinov, A.E. Rizzoli, S.H. Chen (Eds.).
25. Johnson D.W. Effects of forest management on soil carbon storage. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1992, 64:83-120.
26. Johnson D.W., Curtis P.S. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 140:227-238.
27. Karr A.F., Sanil A.P., Banks D.L. Data quality: a statistical perspective. Stat. Methodol. 2006, 3(2):137-173.
28. Kennedy M.C., O'Hagan A., Anderson C.W., Lomas M., Woodward F.I., Heinemeyer A., Gosling J.P. Quantifying Uncertainty in the Biospheric Carbon Flux for England and Wales 2006, Research report no. 564/06, Department of Probability and Statistics, University of Sheffield.
29. Kimmins J.P. From science to stewardship: harnessing forest ecology in the service of society. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256(10):1625-1635.
30. Kimmins J.P., Remple R.S., Welham C.V.J., Seely B., Van Rees K.C.J. Biophysical sustainability, process-based monitoring and forest ecosystem management decision support systems. For. Chron. 2007, 83(4):502-514.
31. Kleijnen J.P.C., Sargent R.G. A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2000, 120(1):14-29.
32. Krishnamurti T.N., Kishtawal C.M., LaRow T.E., Bachiochi D.R., Zhang Z., Williford C.E., Gadgil S., Surendran S. Improved weather and seasonal climate forecasts from multimodel superensemble. Science 1999, 285:1548-1550.
33. Landsberg J. Modelling forest ecosystems: state of the art, challenges, and future directions. Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 33:385-397.
34. Larocque G.R., Bhatti J.S., Boutin R., Chertov O. Uncertainty analysis in carbon cycle models of forest ecosystems: research needs and development of a theoretical framework to estimate error propagation. Ecol. Model. 2008, 219:400-412.
35. Link W.A., Barker R.J. Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference. Ecology 2006, 87:2626-2635.
36. Liu S., Loveland T.R., Kurtz R.M. Contemporary carbon dynamics in terrestrial ecosystems in the Southeastern Plains of the United States. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33:S442-S456.
37. Luckai N., Larocque G.R. Challenges in the application of existing process-based models to predict the effect of climate change on C pools in forest ecosystems. Clim. Change 2002, 55:39-60.
38. MacFarlane D.W., Green E.J., Valentine H.T. Incorporating uncertainty into the parameters of a forest process model. Ecol. Model. 2000, 134:27-40.
39. Maier H.R., Ascough J.C., Wattenbach M., Renschler C.S., Labiosa W.B., Ravalico J.K. Uncertainty in environmental decision making: issues, challenges and future directions. Environmental Modelling, Software and Decision Support 2008, 69-85. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.J. Jakeman, A.A. Voinov, A.E. Rizzoli, S.H. Chen (Eds.).
40. Matott L.S., Babendreier J.E., Purucker S.T. Evaluating uncertainty in integrated environmental models: a review of concepts and tools. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45:W06421. 10.1029/2008WR007301.
41. McAllister M., Kirchner C. Accounting for structural uncertainty to facilitate precautionary fishery management: illustration with Namibian orange roughy. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2002, 70:499-540.
42. McIntosh B.S., Seaton R.A.F., Jeffrey P. Tools to think with? Towards understanding the use of computer-based support tools in policy relevant research. Environ. Model. Soft. 2007, 22:640-648.
43. McIntosh B.S., Giupponi C., Voinov A.A., Smith C., Mathews K.B., Monticino M., Kolkman M.J., Crossman N., van Ittersum M., Haase D., Haase A., Mysiak J., Groot J.C.J., Sieber S., Verweij P., Quinn N., Waeger P., Gaber N., Hepting D., Scholten H., Sulis A., van Delden H., Gaddis E., Assaf H. Bridging the gaps between design and use: developing tools to support environmental management and policy. Environmental Modelling, Software and Decision Support 2008, 33-48. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.J. Jakeman, A.A. Voinov, A.E. Rizzoli, S.H. Chen (Eds.).
44. Melching C.S. An improved first-order reliability approach for assessing uncertainties in hydrologic modeling. J. Hydrol. 1992, 132(1-4):157-177.
45. Melching C.S., Yen B.C., Wenzel H.G. A reliability estimation in modeling watershed runoff with uncertainties. Water Resour. Res. 1990, 26:2275-2286.
46. Montanari A. What do we mean by 'uncertainty'? The need for a consistent wording about with assessment in hydrology. Hydrol. Proc. 2007, 21:841-845.
47. Morris M.D. Input screening: finding the important model inputs on a budget. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2006, 91(10-11):1252-1256.
48. Muleta M.K., Nicklow J.W. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. J. Hydrol. 2005, 306(1-4):127-145.
49. Myšiak J., Brown J.D., Jansen J.M.L., Quinn N.W.T. Environmental policy aid under uncertainty. Environmental Modelling, Software and Decision Support 2008, 87-100. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.J. Jakeman, A.A. Voinov, A.E. Rizzoli, S.H. Chen (Eds.).
50. Norris C.E., Quideau S.A., Bhatti J.S., Wasylishen R.E., MacKenzie M.D. Jack pine soil organic carbon: fire vs harvest. Is there a difference?. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39:642-654.
51. Parker P., Letcherb R., Jakeman A., Beck M.B., Harris G., Argente R.M., Hare M., Pahl-Wostl C., Voinov A., Janssen M., Sullivan P., Scoccimarro M., Friend A., Sonnenshein M., Barker D., Matejicek L., Odulajao D., Deadman P., Lim K., Larocque G., Tarikhi P., Fletcher C., Put A., Maxwell T., Charles A., Breeze H., Nakatani N., Mudgal S., Naito W., Osidele O., Eriksson I., Kautsky U., Kautsky E., Naeslund B., Kumblad L., Park R., Maltagliati S., Girardin P., Rizzoli A., Mauriello D., Hoch R., Pelletier D., Reilly J., Olafsdottir R., Bin S. Progress in integrated assessment and modelling. Environ. Model. Soft. 2002, 19:999-1010.
52. Price D.T., Peng C.H., Apps M.J., Halliwell D.H. Simulating effects of climate change on boreal ecosystem carbon pools in Central Canada. J. Biogeogr. 1999, 26:1237-1248.
53. Reed D., Jones E.A. How good is good enough? Information quality needs for management decision making. Modelling Forest Systems 2003, 359-365. CABI Publishing, Cambridge. A. Amaro, D. Reed, P. Soares (Eds.).
54. Refsgaard J.C., van der Sluijs J.P., Højberg A.L., Vanrolleghem P.A. Uncertainty in the environment modelling process - a framework and guidance. Environ. Model. Soft. 2007, 22:1543-1556.
55. 2O and NO emissions using an ensemble modeling approach: Costa Rica's Caribbean lowlands as an example. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16:1-17.
56. Rizzoli A.E., Leavesley G., Ascough J.C., Argent R.M., Athanasiadis I.N., Brilhante V., Claeys F.H.A., David O., Donatelli M., Gijsbers P., Havlik D., Kassahun A., Krause P., Quinn N.W.T., Scholten H., Sojda R.S., Villa F. Integrated modelling frameworks for environmental assessment and decision support. Environmental Modelling, Software and Decision Support 2008, 101-118. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.J. Jakeman, A.A. Voinov, A.E. Rizzoli, S.H. Chen (Eds.).
57. Ryan M.G., Hunt E.R., McMurtrie R.E., Ågren G.I., Aber J.D., Friend A.D., Rastetter E.B., Pulliam W.M., Raison R.J., Linder S. Comparing models of ecosystem function for temperate conifer forests. I. Model description and validation. Global Change: Effects on Coniferous Forests and Grasslands, SCOPE 1996, 313-362. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. A.I. Breymeyer, D.O. Hall, J.M. Melillo, G.I. Ågren (Eds.).
58. Ryan M.G., McMurtrie R.E., Ågren G.I., Hunt E.R., Aber J.D., Friend A.D., Rastetter E.B., Pulliam Comparing models of ecosystem function for temperate conifer forests. II. Simulations of the effect of climate change. Global Change: Effects on Coniferous Forests and Grasslands, SCOPE 1996, 363-387. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. A.I. Breymeyer, D.O. Hall, J.M. Melillo, G.I. Ågren (Eds.).
59. Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Campolongo S., Ratto M. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: a Guide to Assessing Scientific Models 2004, John Wiley, New York, NY.
60. Smith J.E., Heath L.S. Identifying influences on model uncertainty: an application using a forest carbon budget model. Environ. Manag. 2001, 27:253-267.
61. Smith P., Smith J.U., Powlson D.S., McGill W.B., Arah J.R.M., Chertov O.G., Coleman K., Franko U., Frolking S., Jenkinson D.S., Jensen L.S., Kellt R.H., Klein-Gunnewiek H., Komarov A.S., Li C., Molina J.A.E., Mueller T., Parton W.J., Thornley J.H.M., Whitmore A.P. A comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models using datasets from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 1997, 81:153-227.
62. Sobol I.M. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math. Comput. Simul. 2001, 55(1-3):271-280.
63. Sorooshian S., Gupta V.K. The analysis of structural identifiability theory and application to conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res. 1985, 21(4):487-496.
64. Valle D., Staudhammer C.L., Cropper W.P., Van Gardingen P.R. The importance of multimodel projections to assess uncertainty in projections from simulation models. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19(7):1680-1692.
65. van Tongeren O.F.R. Data analysis or simulation model: a critical evaluation of some methods. Ecol. Model. 78 1995, 51-60.
66. Varis O., Kuikka S. Learning Bayesian decision analysis by doing: lessons from environmental and natural resources management. Ecol. Model. 1999, 119:177-195.
67. Verbeeck H., Samson R., Verdonck F., Lemeur R. Parameter sensitivity and uncertainty of the forest carbon flux model FORUG: a Monte Carlo analysis. Tree Physiol. 2006, 26:807-817.
68. Wade P.R. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14(5):1308-1316.
69. Wagener T., McIntyre N., Lees H.S., Gupta H.V. Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrol. Proc. 2003, 17(2):455-476.
70. Watson F.G.R., Rahman J.M. Tarsier: a practical software framework for model development, testing and development. Environ. Model. Soft. 2004, 19:245-260.
71. White T., Luckai N., Larocque G.R., Kurz W.A., Smyth C. A practical approach for assessing the sensitivity of the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3). Ecol. Model. 2008, 219:373-382.
72. Xu Y.-P., Booij M.J., Mynett A.E. An appropriateness framework for the Dutch Meuse decision support system. Environ. Model. Soft. 2007, 22:1667-1678.
73. Yanai R.D., Currie W.S., Goodale C.L. Soil carbon dynamics after forest harvest: an ecosystem paradigm reconsidered. Ecosystems 2003, 6:197-212.
74. Ye M., Meyer P.D., Neumann S.P. On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44:W03428. 10.1029/2008WR006803.
75. Zhang C.F., Meng F.-R., Bhatti J.S., Trofymow J.A., Arp P.A. Modelling leaf-litter decomposition and N mineralization in forest litterbags, placed across Canada: a 5-model comparison. Ecol. Model. 2008, 219:342-360.