A model - data intercomparison of CO2 exchange across North America: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesisReportar como inadecuado




A model - data intercomparison of CO2 exchange across North America: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Eddy convariance data, Global vegetation model, Leaf-area index, Mixed hardwood forest, Net ecosystem exchange, Primary productivity, Interannual variability, Dioxide exchange, United States, Atmosphere exchange

Additional contributors:

Subject-Keyword: Eddy convariance data Global vegetation model Leaf-area index Mixed hardwood forest Net ecosystem exchange Primary productivity Interannual variability Dioxide exchange United States Atmosphere exchange

Type of item: Journal Article Published

Language: English

Place:

Time:

Description: Abstract: Our current understanding of terrestrial carbon processes is represented in various models used to integrate and scale measurements of CO2 exchange from remote sensing and other spatiotemporal data. Yet assessments are rarely conducted to determine how well models simulate carbon processes across vegetation types and environmental conditions. Using standardized data from the North American Carbon Program we compare observed and simulated monthly CO2 exchange from 44 eddy covariance flux towers in North America and 22 terrestrial biosphere models. The analysis period spans similar to 220 site-years, 10 biomes, and includes two large-scale drought events, providing a natural experiment to evaluate model skill as a function of drought and seasonality. We evaluate models- ability to simulate the seasonal cycle of CO2 exchange using multiple model skill metrics and analyze links between model characteristics, site history, and model skill. Overall model performance was poor; the difference between observations and simulations was similar to 10 times observational uncertainty, with forested ecosystems better predicted than nonforested. Model-data agreement was highest in summer and in temperate evergreen forests. In contrast, model performance declined in spring and fall, especially in ecosystems with large deciduous components, and in dry periods during the growing season. Models used across multiple biomes and sites, the mean model ensemble, and a model using assimilated parameter values showed high consistency with observations. Models with the highest skill across all biomes all used prescribed canopy phenology, calculated NEE as the difference between GPP and ecosystem respiration, and did not use a daily time step.

Date created: 2010

DOI: doi:10.7939-R31C1TG9W

License information:

Rights: © 2010 American Geophysical Union. This version of this article is open access and can be downloaded and shared. The original authors and source must be cited.





Autor: Schwalm, C. R. Williams, C. A. Schaefer, K. Anderson, R. Arain, M. A. Baker, I. Barr, A. Black, T.A. Chen, G. S. Chen, J. M. Ciai

Fuente: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/


Introducción



JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL.
115, G00H05, doi:10.1029-2009JG001229, 2010 A model‐data intercomparison of CO2 exchange across North America: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis Christopher R.
Schwalm,1 Christopher A.
Williams,1 Kevin Schaefer,2 Ryan Anderson,3 M.
Altaf Arain,4 Ian Baker,5 Alan Barr,6 T.
Andrew Black,7 Guangsheng Chen,8 Jing Ming Chen,9 Philippe Ciais,10 Kenneth J.
Davis,11 Ankur Desai,12 Michael Dietze,13 Danilo Dragoni,14 Marc L.
Fischer,15 Lawrence B.
Flanagan,16 Robert Grant,17 Lianhong Gu,18 David Hollinger,19 R.
César Izaurralde,20 Chris Kucharik,21 Peter Lafleur,22 Beverly E.
Law,23 Longhui Li,10 Zhengpeng Li,24 Shuguang Liu,25 Erandathie Lokupitiya,5 Yiqi Luo,26 Siyan Ma,27 Hank Margolis,28 Roser Matamala,29 Harry McCaughey,30 Russell K.
Monson,31 Walter C.
Oechel,32 Changhui Peng,33 Benjamin Poulter,34 David T.
Price,35 Dan M.
Riciutto,18 William Riley,36 Alok Kumar Sahoo,37 Michael Sprintsin,9 Jianfeng Sun,33 Hanqin Tian,8 Christina Tonitto,38 Hans Verbeeck,39 and Shashi B.
Verma40 Received 23 November 2009; revised 23 July 2010; accepted 29 July 2010; published 9 December 2010. 1 Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. 2 National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. 4 School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5 Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 6 Climate Research Division, Atmospheric Science and Technology Directorate, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 7 Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.
C., Canada. 8 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. 9 Department of Geography and Program in Planning, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10 ...





Documentos relacionados