Articles | Volume 10, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1321-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1321-2017
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
28 Mar 2017
Methods for assessment of models |  | 28 Mar 2017

Data-mining analysis of the global distribution of soil carbon in observational databases and Earth system models

Shoji Hashimoto, Kazuki Nanko, Boris Ťupek, and Aleksi Lehtonen

Related authors

Modelling boreal forest's mineral soil and peat C dynamics with the Yasso07 model coupled with the Ricker moisture modifier
Boris Ťupek, Aleksi Lehtonen, Alla Yurova, Rose Abramoff, Bertrand Guenet, Elisa Bruni, Samuli Launiainen, Mikko Peltoniemi, Shoji Hashimoto, Xianglin Tian, Juha Heikkinen, Kari Minkkinen, and Raisa Mäkipää
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5349–5367, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5349-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5349-2024, 2024
Short summary
Underestimation of boreal soil carbon stocks by mathematical soil carbon models linked to soil nutrient status
Boris Ťupek, Carina A. Ortiz, Shoji Hashimoto, Johan Stendahl, Jonas Dahlgren, Erik Karltun, and Aleksi Lehtonen
Biogeosciences, 13, 4439–4459, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4439-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4439-2016, 2016
Short summary
Global spatiotemporal distribution of soil respiration modeled using a global database
S. Hashimoto, N. Carvalhais, A. Ito, M. Migliavacca, K. Nishina, and M. Reichstein
Biogeosciences, 12, 4121–4132, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4121-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4121-2015, 2015

Related subject area

Biogeosciences
Process-based modeling of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence with VISIT-SIF version 1.0
Tatsuya Miyauchi, Makoto Saito, Hibiki M. Noda, Akihiko Ito, Tomomichi Kato, and Tsuneo Matsunaga
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2329–2347, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2329-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2329-2025, 2025
Short summary
Including the phosphorus cycle into the LPJ-GUESS dynamic global vegetation model (v4.1, r10994) – global patterns and temporal trends of N and P primary production limitation
Mateus Dantas de Paula, Matthew Forrest, David Warlind, João Paulo Darela Filho, Katrin Fleischer, Anja Rammig, and Thomas Hickler
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2249–2274, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2249-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2249-2025, 2025
Short summary
A comprehensive land-surface vegetation model for multi-stream data assimilation, D&B v1.0
Wolfgang Knorr, Matthew Williams, Tea Thum, Thomas Kaminski, Michael Voßbeck, Marko Scholze, Tristan Quaife, T. Luke Smallman, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Tim Green, Sönke Zaehle, Mika Aurela, Alexandre Bouvet, Emanuel Bueechi, Wouter Dorigo, Tarek S. El-Madany, Mirco Migliavacca, Marika Honkanen, Yann H. Kerr, Anna Kontu, Juha Lemmetyinen, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Arnaud Mialon, Tuuli Miinalainen, Gaétan Pique, Amanda Ojasalo, Shaun Quegan, Peter J. Rayner, Pablo Reyes-Muñoz, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Mike Schwank, Jochem Verrelst, Songyan Zhu, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Matthias Drusch
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2137–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Sources of uncertainty in the SPITFIRE global fire model: development of LPJmL-SPITFIRE1.9 and directions for future improvements
Luke Oberhagemann, Maik Billing, Werner von Bloh, Markus Drüke, Matthew Forrest, Simon P. K. Bowring, Jessica Hetzer, Jaime Ribalaygua Batalla, and Kirsten Thonicke
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2021–2050, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2021-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2021-2025, 2025
Short summary
The unicellular NUM v.0.91: a trait-based plankton model evaluated in two contrasting biogeographic provinces
Trine Frisbæk Hansen, Donald Eugene Canfield, Ken Haste Andersen, and Christian Jannik Bjerrum
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1895–1916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1895-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1895-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Aertsen, W., Kint, V., De Vos, B., Deckers, J., Van Orshoven, J., and Muys, B.: Predicting forest site productivity in temperate lowland from forest floor, soil and litterfall characteristics using boosted regression trees, Plant Soil, 354, 157–172, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1052-z, 2011.
Alexander, K. and Easterbrook, S. M.: The software architecture of climate models: a graphical comparison of CMIP5 and EMICAR5 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1221–1232, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1221-2015, 2015.
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Kidston, M., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Jones, C., Jung, M., Myneni, R. and Zhu, Z.: Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models, J. Climate, 26, 6801–6843, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00417.1, 2013.
Arora, V. K., Boer, G. J., Friedlingstein, P., Eby, M., Jones, C. D., Christian, J. R., Bonan, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Lindsay, K., Tjiputra, J. F., and Wu, T.: Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 earth system models, J. Climate, 26, 5289–5314, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1, 2013.
Averill, C., Turner, B. L., and Finzi, A. C.: Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage, Nature, 505, 543–545, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12901, 2014.
Download
Short summary
Soil organic carbon (SOC) stock simulated by Earth system models (ESMs) and those of observational databases are not well correlated when the two are compared at fine grid scales. To identify the key factors that govern global SOC distribution, we applied a data-mining scheme to observational databases and outputs from ESMs. This study not only identifies key factors but it also presents a new approach that compares the observational databases with ESM outputs.
Share