Status: this discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Biogeosciences (BG). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.
Evaluation of modeled global carbon dynamics: analysis based on global carbon flux and above-ground biomass data
Abstract. Dynamic global vegetation models are useful tools for the simulation of carbon dynamics on regional and global scales. However, even the most validated models are usually hampered by the poor availability of global biomass data in the model validation, especially on regional/global scales. Here, taking the integrated biosphere simulator model (IBIS) as an example, we evaluated the modeled carbon dynamics, including gross primary production (GPP) and potential above-ground biomass (AGB), on the global scale. The IBIS model was constrained by both in situ GPP and plot-level AGB data collected from the literature. Independent validation showed that IBIS could reproduce GPP and evapotranspiration with acceptable accuracy at site and global levels. On the global scale, the IBIS-simulated total AGB was similar to those obtained in other studies. However, discrepancies were observed between the model-derived and observed spatial patterns of AGB for Amazonian forests. The differences among the AGB spatial patterns were mainly caused by the single-parameter set of the model used. This study showed that different meteorological inputs can also introduce substantial differences in AGB on the global scale. Further analysis showed that this difference is small compared with parameter-induced differences. The conclusions of our research highlight the necessity of considering the heterogeneity of key model physiological parameters in modeling global AGB. The research also shows that to simulate large-scale carbon dynamics, both carbon flux and AGB data are necessary to constrain the model. The main conclusions of our research will help to improve model simulations of global carbon cycles.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Total article views: 1,365 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML
PDF
XML
Total
Supplement
BibTeX
EndNote
962
316
87
1,365
498
66
88
HTML: 962
PDF: 316
XML: 87
Total: 1,365
Supplement: 498
BibTeX: 66
EndNote: 88
Views and downloads (calculated since 25 Apr 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 25 Apr 2016)
Latest update: 14 Dec 2024
Bao-Lin Xue
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
Qinghua Guo
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
School of Engineering, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, Univ ersity of California at Merced, CA 95343, USA
Tianyu Hu
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
Yongcai Wang
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
Shengli Tao
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
Yanjun Sun
School of Engineering, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, Univ ersity of California at Merced, CA 95343, USA
Jin Liu
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
Xiaoqian Zhao
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
Validation of dynamic global vegetation models are usually hampered by the poor availability of global biomass data over global scales. We evaluated model simulated gross primary production (GPP) and potential above-ground biomass (AGB) by literature-collected values. Independent validation showed that model could reproduce spatial patterns of GPP and evapotranspiration; but not for AGB. Results also showed that different meteorological inputs can also introduce substantial difference in AGB.
Validation of dynamic global vegetation models are usually hampered by the poor availability of...