Selecting parameters for bayesian calibration of a process-based model: A methodology based on canonical correlation analysis

SIAM-ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 370-385

  Minunno, F ^a   van Oijen, M ^b   Cameron, D R ^b   Pereira, J S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

^b CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian calibration; Canonical correlation analysis; Parameter screening; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CORRELATION METHODS; FORESTRY; SAMPLING;

BAYESIAN APPROACHES; BAYESIAN CALIBRATION; BAYESIAN STATISTICS; CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE; PARAMETER SCREENING; PROCESS-BASED MODELING; SENSITIVITY METHODS;

CALIBRATION;

EID: 84933532694     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21662525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1137/120891344     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. O. Andrén and T. Kätterer, ICBM: The introductory carbon balance model for exploration of soil carbon balances, Ecol. Appl., 7 (1997), pp. 1226–1236.
2. C. Andrieu and J. Thoms, A tutorial on adaptive MCMC, Stat. Comput., 18 (2008), pp. 343–373.
3. M. Aubinet, A. Grelle, A. Ibrom, Ü. Rannik, J. Moncrieff, T. Foken, A. S. Kowalski, et al., Estimates of the annual net carbon and water exchange of forests: The EUROFLUX methodology, Adv. Ecol. Res., 30 (1999), pp. 113–175.
4. D. D. Baldocchi, Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: Past, present and future, Global Change Biol., 9 (2003), pp. 479–492.
5. F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, and A. Saltelli, An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models, Environ. Model. Softw., 22 (2007), pp. 1509–1518.
6. A. C. Correia, F. Minunno, M. C. Caldeira, J. Banza, J. Mateus, M. Carneiro, L. Wingate, et al., Soil water availability strongly modulates soil CO2 efflux in different Mediterranean ecosystems: Model calibration using the Bayesian approach, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 161 (2012), pp. 88–100.
7. R. I. Cukier, C. M. Fortuin, K. E. Shuler, A. G. Petschek, and J. H. Schaibly, Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. I. Theory, J. Chem. Phys., 59 (1973), pp. 3873–3878.
8. B. Efron, Bayes’ theorem in the 21st century, Science, 340 (2013), pp. 1177–1178.
9. L. J. Esprey, P. J. Sands, and C. W. Smith, Understanding 3-PG using a sensitivity analysis, For. Ecol. Manage., 193 (2004), pp. 235–250.
10. L. Fontes, J.-D. Bontemps, H. Bugmann, M. Van Oijen, C. Gracia, K. Kramer, M. Lindner, T. Rötzer, and J. P. Skovsgaard, Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment, Forest Syst., 19 (2010), pp. 8–29.
11. A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Statist. Sci., 7 (1992), pp. 457–511.
12. J. Gill, Is partial-dimension convergence a problem for inferences from MCMC algorithms?, Polit. Anal., 16 (2008), pp. 153–178.
13. J. F. Hair, R. L. Tatham, R. E. Anderson, and W. C. Black, Canonical correlation analysis, in Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998, chapter 8.
14. H. Hotelling, Relations between two sets of variates, Biometrika, 28 (1936), pp. 321–377.
15. K. Johnsen, L. Samuelson, R. Teskey, S. McNulty, and T. Fox, Process models as tools in forestry research and management, Forest Sci., 47 (2001), pp. 2–8.
16. T. Kätterer and O. Andrén, Long-term agricultural field experiments in Northern Europe: Analysis of the influence of management on soil carbon stocks using the ICBM model, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 72 (1999), pp. 165–179.
17. T. Kätterer and O. Andrén, The ICBM family of analytically solved models of soil carbon, nitrogen and microbial biomass dynamics—Descriptions and application examples, Ecol. Model., 136 (2001), pp. 191–207.
18. J. J. Landsberg and R. H. Waring, A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning, For. Ecol. Manage., 95 (1997), pp. 209–228.
19. M. Lindner, M. Maroschek, S. Netherer, A. Kremer, A. Barbati, J. Garcia-Gonzalo, R. Seidl, et al., Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems, For. Ecol. Manage., 259 (2010), pp. 698–709.
20. F. Minunno, M. Van Oijen, D. R. Cameron, S. Cerasoli, J. S. Pereira, and M. Tomé, Using a Bayesian framework and global sensitivity analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses of two process-based models differing in representation of autotrophic respiration, Environ. Model. Softw., 42 (2013), pp. 99–115.
21. M. D. Morris, Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments, Technometrics, 33 (1991), pp. 161–174.
22. K. Ogle and J. J. Barber, Bayesian data—Model integration in plant physiological and ecosystem ecology, in Progress in Botany, Springer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 281–311.
23. J. S. Pereira, J. A. Mateus, L. M. Aires, G. Pita, C. Pio, J. S. David, V. Andrade, et al., Net ecosystem carbon exchange in three contrasting Mediterranean ecosystems—The effect of drought, Biogeosciences, 4 (2007), pp. 791–802.
24. M. Reichstein, E. Falge, D. Baldocchi, D. Papale, M. Aubinet, P. Berbigier, C. Bernhofer, et al., On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: Review and improved algorithm, Global Change Biol., 11 (2005), pp. 1424–1439.
25. G. O. Roberts, A. Gelman, and W. R. Gilks, Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms, Ann. Appl. Probab., 7 (1997), pp. 110–120.
26. A. Saltelli, P. Annoni, I. Azzini, F. Campolongo, M. Ratto, and S. Tarantola, Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index, Comput. Phys. Comm., 181 (2010), pp. 259–270.
27. A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, F. Campolongo, and M. Ratto, Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2004.
28. P. J. Sands and J. J. Landsberg, Parameterisation of 3-PG for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus, For. Ecol. Manage., 163 (2002), pp. 273–292.
29. D. S. Sivia and J. Skilling, Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2006.
30. I. M. Sobol’, Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates, Math. Comput. Simulation, 55 (2001), pp. 271–280.
31. M. Van Oijen, D. R. Cameron, K. Butterbach-Bahl, N. Farahbakhshazad, P.-E. Jansson, R. Kiese, K.-H. Rahn, C. Werner, and J. B. Yeluripati, A Bayesian framework for model calibration, comparison and analysis: Application to four models for the biogeochemistry of a Norway spruce forest, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 151 (2011), pp. 1609–1621.
32. M. Van Oijen, C. Reyer, F. J. Bohn, D. R. Cameron, G. Deckmyn, M. Flechsig, S. Härkönen, et al., Bayesian calibration, comparison and averaging of six forest models, using data from Scots pine stands across Europe, For. Ecol. Manage., 289 (2013), pp. 255–268.
33. M. Van Oijen, J. Rougier, and R. Smith, Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: Bridging the gap between models and data, Tree Physiol., 25 (2005), pp. 915–927.
34. G. Xenakis, D. Ray, and M. Mencuccini, Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis from a coupled 3-PG and soil organic matter decomposition model, Ecol. Model., 219 (2008), pp. 1–16.