Bayesian calibration, comparison and averaging of six forest models, using data from Scots pine stands across Europe

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 289, Issue , 2013, Pages 255-268

  van Oijen, M ^a   Reyer, C ^b   Bohn, F J ^c   Cameron, D R ^a   Deckmyn, G ^d   Flechsig, M ^b   Harkonen S ^e   Hartig, F ^c   Huth, A ^c   Kiviste, A ^f   Lasch, P ^b   Makela A ^g   Mette, T ^h   Minunno, F ⁱ   Rammer, W ^j  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^c HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^e FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^f ESTONIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Estonia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^h TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

ⁱ Universidade de Lisboa   (Portugal)

^j UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

more..

Author keywords

Dynamic modelling; Forest management models; Growth prediction; National forest inventories; Permanent sample plots; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

AUSTRIA; BAYESIAN CALIBRATION; BAYESIAN MODEL; BAYESIAN MODEL AVERAGING; BELGIUM; BRIDGING MODELS; COMPLEX MODEL; DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY; ESTONIA; FINLAND; FOREST GROWTH; FOREST MODELS; GENERIC PARAMETERS; INTERMEDIATE COMPLEXITY; INVENTORY DATA; MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY; MODEL PARAMETERS; MODEL PERFORMANCE; MODEL PREDICTION; NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORIES; PARAMETER VALUES; PERMANENT SAMPLE PLOTS; PLAUSIBLE MODEL; POSTERIOR DISTRIBUTIONS; PROCESS-BASED MODELS; RELATIVE PROBABILITY; SCOTS PINE; SCOTS PINE STANDS; STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTY; TREE HEIGHT; UNCERTAINTY;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); CALIBRATION; DYNAMIC MODELS; FORECASTING; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

FORESTRY;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONIFEROUS FOREST; FOREST INVENTORY; FORESTRY MODELING; GROWTH RATE; SAMPLING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMING; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GROWTH; INVENTORIES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY;

AUSTRIA; BELGIUM; ESTONIA; FINLAND;

PINUS SYLVESTRIS;

EID: 84870163680     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.043     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Andren O., Katterer T. ICBM: the introductory carbon balance model for exploration of soil carbon balances. Ecological Applications 1997, 7(4):1226-1236.
2. Baeyens L., van Slycken J., Stevens D. Description of the Soil Profile in Brasschaat 1993, Institute of Forestry and Game Management, Geraardsbergen, Belgium.
3. Bugmann H., Grote R., Lasch P., Lindner M., Suckow F. A new forest gap model to study the effects of environmental change on forest structure and functioning, impacts of global change on tree physiology and forest ecosystems. Forestry Sciences 1997, 255-261. Springer, Dordrecht.
4. Curiel Yuste J., Konopka B., Janssens I.A., Coenen K., Xiao C.W., Ceulemans R. Contrasting net primary productivity and carbon distribution between neighboring stands of Quercus robur and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiology 2005, 25(6):701-712.
5. Davidson R.L. Effect of root/leaf temperature differentials on root/shoot ratios in some pasture grasses and clover. Annals of Botany 1969, 33:561-569.
6. Deckmyn G., Verbeeck H., Op de Beeck M., Vansteenkiste D., Steppe K., Ceulemans R. ANAFORE: a stand-scale process-based forest model that includes wood tissue development and labile carbon storage in trees. Ecological Modelling 2008, 215(4):345-368.
7. Deckmyn G., Mali B., Kraigher H., Torelli N., Op de Beeck M., Ceulemans R. Using the process-based stand model ANAFORE including Bayesian optimisation to predict wood quality and quantity and their uncertainty in Slovenian Beech. Silva Fennica 2009, 43(3):523-534.
8. Duursma R.A., Makela A. Summary models for light interception and light-use efficiency of non-homogeneous canopies. Tree Physiology 2007, 27(6):859-870.
9. Fontes L., Bontemps J.D., Bugmann H., Van Oijen M., Gracia C., Kramer K., Lindner M., Rotzer T., Skovsgaard J.P. Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. Forest Systems 2010, 19:8-29.
10. Fu Y.H., Campioli M., Van Oijen M., Deckmyn G., Janssens I. Bayesian comparison of six different temperature-based budburst models for four temperate tree species. Ecological Modelling 2012, 230:92-100.
11. Gelman A., Rubin D.B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 1992, 7:457-511.
12. Green E.J., MacFarlane D.W., Valentine H.T., Strawderman W.E. Assessing uncertainty in a stand growth model by Bayesian synthesis. Forest Science 1999, 45(4):528-538.
13. Gutiérrez A.G., Huth A. Successional stages of primary temperate rainforests of Chiloé Island, Chile. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2012, 14:243-256.
14. Härkönen S., Pulkkinen M., Duursma R., Mäkelä A. Estimating annual GPP, NPP and stem growth in Finland using summary models. Forest Ecology and Management 2010, 259(3):524-533.
15. Hartig, F., Dyke, J., Hickler, T., Higgins, S., O'Hara, R.B., Scheiter, S. and Huth, A., 2012. Connecting dynamic vegetation models to data - an inverse perspective. Journal of Biogeography. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02745.x.
16. Haxeltine A., Prentice I.C. A general model for the light-use efficiency of primary production. Functional Ecology 1996, 10:551-561.
17. Hoeting J.A., Madigan D., Raftery A.E., Volinsky C.T. Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial. Statistical Science 1999, 14(4):382-417.
18. Kass R.E., Raftery A.E. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995, 90(430):773-795.
19. Kobayashi K., Salam M.U. Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agronomy Journal 2000, 92(2):345-352.
20. Köhler P., Huth A. The effects of tree species grouping in tropical rainforest modelling: simulations with the individual-based model FORMIND. Ecological Modelling 1998, 109(3):301-321.
21. Landsberg J.J., Waring R.H. A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. Forest Ecology and Management 1997, 95(3):209-228.
22. Landsberg J., Makela A., Sievanen R., Kukkola M. Analysis of biomass accumulation and stem size distributions over long periods in managed stands of Pinus sylvestris in Finland using the 3-PG model. Tree Physiology 2005, 25(7):781-792.
23. Lasch P., Badeck F.W., Suckow F., Lindner M., Mohr P. Model-based analysis of management alternatives at stand and regional level in Brandenburg (Germany). Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 207(1-2):59-74.
24. Law B.E., Waring R.H., Anthoni P.M., Aber J.D. Measurements of gross and net ecosystem productivity and water vapour exchange of a Pinus ponderosa ecosystem, and an evaluation of two generalized models. Global Change Biology 2000, 6(2):155-168.
25. Lehuger S., Gabrielle B., Van Oijen M., Makowski D., Germon J.C., Morvan T., Hénault C. Bayesian calibration of the nitrous oxide emission module of an agro-ecosystem model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2009, 133(3-4):208-222.
26. Levy P.E., Wendler R., Van Oijen M., Cannell M.G.R., Millard P. The effects of nitrogen enrichment on the carbon sink in coniferous forests: uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of three ecosystem models. Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus 2004, 4:67-74.
27. Luo Y., Weng E., Wu X., Gao C., Zhou X., Zhang L. Parameter identifiability, constraint, and equifinality in data assimilation with ecosystem models. Ecological Applications 2009, 19(3):571-574.
28. Mäkelä A. A carbon balance model of growth and self-pruning in trees based on structural relationships. Forest Science 1997, 43:7-24.
29. Mäkelä A., Sievanen R. Height growth strategies in open-grown trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1992, 159(4):443-467.
30. Mäkelä A., Vanninen P. Vertical structure of Scots pine crowns in different age and size classes. Trees 2001, 15:385-392.
31. Mäkelä A., Pulkkinen M., Kolari P., Lagergren F., Berbigier P., Lindroth A., Loustau D., Nikinmaa E., Vesala T., Hari P. Developing an empirical model of stand GPP with the LUE approach: analysis of eddy covariance data at five contrasting conifer sites in Europe. Global Change Biology 2008, 14(1):92-108.
32. Mäkelä A., del Río M., Hynynen J., Hawkins M.J., Reyer C., Soares P., Van Oijen M., Tomé M. Using forest growth models for estimating indicators of sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 2012, 285:164-178.
33. Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A.W., Rosenbluth M.N., Teller A.H., Teller E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics 1953, 21:1087-1092.
34. Min S.-K., Hense A. A Bayesian approach to climate model evaluation and multi-model averaging with an application to global mean surface temperatures from IPCC AR4 coupled climate models. Geophysical Research Letters 2006, 33(8):L08708.
35. Palmroth S., Berninger F., Nikinmaa E., Lloyd J., Pulkkinen P., Hari P. Structural adaptation rather than water conservation was observed in Scots pine over a range of wet to dry climates. Oecologia 1999, 121:302-309.
36. Radtke P.J., Burk T.E., Bolstad P.V. Estimates of the distributions of forest ecosystem model inputs for deciduous forests of eastern North America. Tree Physiology 2001, 21(8):505-512.
37. Reinds G.J., van Oijen M., Heuvelink G.B.M., Kros H. Bayesian calibration of the VSD soil acidification model using European forest monitoring data. Geoderma 2008, 146(3-4):475-488.
38. Reyer C., Lasch P., Mohren G.M.J., Sterck F.J. Inter-specific competition in mixed forests of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica) under climate change - a model-based analysis. Annals of Forest Science 2010, 67(8):11.
39. Ruger N., Gutierrez A.G., Kissling W.D., Armesto J.J., Huth A. Ecological impacts of different harvesting scenarios for temperate evergreen rain forest in southern Chile - a simulation experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 2007, 252(1-3):52-66.
40. Sands P.J., Landsberg J.J. Parameterisation of 3-PG for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus. Forest Ecology and Management 2002, 163(1-3):273-292.
41. Seidl R., Rammer W., Lasch P., Badeck F.W., Lexer M.J. Does conversion of even-aged, secondary coniferous forests affect carbon sequestration? A simulation study under changing environmental conditions. Silva Fennica 2008, 42(3):369-386.
42. Shinozaki K., Yoda K., Hozumi K., Kira T. A quantitative analysis of plant form - the pipe model theory. I. Basic analysis. Japanese Journal of Ecology 1964, 14:97-105.
43. Sims A., Kiviste A., Hordo M., Laarmann D., von Gadow K. Estimating tree survival: a study based on the Estonian forest research plots network. Annales Botanici Fennici 2009, 46(4):336-352.
44. Suckow F., Badeck F.W., Lasch P., Schaber J. Nutzung von Level-II-Beobachtungen für Test und Anwendungen des Sukzessionsmodells FORESEE. Beiträge für Forstwirtschaft und Landschaftsökologie 2001, 35:84-87.
45. Tuomi M., Vanhala P., Karhu K., Fritze H., Liski J. Heterotrophic soil respiration - comparison of different models describing its temperature dependence. Ecological Modelling 2008, 211(1-2):182-190.
46. Valentine H.T., Mäkelä A. Bridging process-based and empirical approaches to modeling tree growth. Tree Physiology 2005, 25(7):769-779.
47. Van Oijen M., Thomson A. Toward Bayesian uncertainty quantification for forestry models used in the United Kingdom greenhouse gas inventory for land use, land use change, and forestry. Climatic Change 2010, 103(1):55-67.
48. Van Oijen M., Rougier J., Smith R. Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: bridging the gap between models and data. Tree Physiology 2005, 25(7):915-927.
49. Van Oijen M., Dauzat J., Harmand J.-M., Lawson G., Vaast P. Coffee agroforestry systems in Central America. II. Development of a simple process-based model and preliminary results. Agroforestry Systems 2010, 80(3):361-378.
50. Van Oijen M., Cameron D.R., Butterbach-Bahl K., Farahbakhshazad N., Jansson P.E., Kiese R., Rahn K.H., Werner C., Yeluripati J.B. A Bayesian framework for model calibration, comparison and analysis: application to four models for the biogeochemistry of a Norway spruce forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 2011, 151(12):1609-1621.
51. Vanninen P., Mäkelä A. Carbon budget for Scots pine trees: effect of size, competition and site fertility on growth allocation and production. Tree Physiology 2005, 25:17-30.
52. Waring R.H., Landsberg J.J., Williams M. Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production?. Tree Physiology 1998, 18(2):129-134.
53. Xenakis G., Ray D., Mencuccini M. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis from a coupled 3-PG and soil organic matter decomposition model. Ecological Modelling 2008, 219(1-2):1-16.