Articles | Volume 10, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017
Model evaluation paper
 | 
22 Sep 2017
Model evaluation paper |  | 22 Sep 2017

Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests

Francesc Montané, Andrew M. Fox, Avelino F. Arellano, Natasha MacBean, M. Ross Alexander, Alex Dye, Daniel A. Bishop, Valerie Trouet, Flurin Babst, Amy E. Hessl, Neil Pederson, Peter D. Blanken, Gil Bohrer, Christopher M. Gough, Marcy E. Litvak, Kimberly A. Novick, Richard P. Phillips, Jeffrey D. Wood, and David J. P. Moore

Related authors

Using GNSS-based vegetation optical depth, tree sway motion, and eddy-covariance to examine evaporation of canopy-intercepted rainfall in a subalpine forest
Sean P. Burns, Vincent Humphrey, Ethan D. Gutmann, Mark S. Raleigh, David R. Bowling, and Peter D. Blanken
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1755,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1755, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
X-BASE: the first terrestrial carbon and water flux products from an extended data-driven scaling framework, FLUXCOM-X
Jacob A. Nelson, Sophia Walther, Fabian Gans, Basil Kraft, Ulrich Weber, Kimberly Novick, Nina Buchmann, Mirco Migliavacca, Georg Wohlfahrt, Ladislav Šigut, Andreas Ibrom, Dario Papale, Mathias Göckede, Gregory Duveiller, Alexander Knohl, Lukas Hörtnagl, Russell L. Scott, Jiří Dušek, Weijie Zhang, Zayd Mahmoud Hamdi, Markus Reichstein, Sergio Aranda-Barranco, Jonas Ardö, Maarten Op de Beeck, Dave Billesbach, David Bowling, Rosvel Bracho, Christian Brümmer, Gustau Camps-Valls, Shiping Chen, Jamie Rose Cleverly, Ankur Desai, Gang Dong, Tarek S. El-Madany, Eugenie Susanne Euskirchen, Iris Feigenwinter, Marta Galvagno, Giacomo A. Gerosa, Bert Gielen, Ignacio Goded, Sarah Goslee, Christopher Michael Gough, Bernard Heinesch, Kazuhito Ichii, Marcin Antoni Jackowicz-Korczynski, Anne Klosterhalfen, Sara Knox, Hideki Kobayashi, Kukka-Maaria Kohonen, Mika Korkiakoski, Ivan Mammarella, Mana Gharun, Riccardo Marzuoli, Roser Matamala, Stefan Metzger, Leonardo Montagnani, Giacomo Nicolini, Thomas O'Halloran, Jean-Marc Ourcival, Matthias Peichl, Elise Pendall, Borja Ruiz Reverter, Marilyn Roland, Simone Sabbatini, Torsten Sachs, Marius Schmidt, Christopher R. Schwalm, Ankit Shekhar, Richard Silberstein, Maria Lucia Silveira, Donatella Spano, Torbern Tagesson, Gianluca Tramontana, Carlo Trotta, Fabio Turco, Timo Vesala, Caroline Vincke, Domenico Vitale, Enrique R. Vivoni, Yi Wang, William Woodgate, Enrico A. Yepez, Junhui Zhang, Donatella Zona, and Martin Jung
Biogeosciences, 21, 5079–5115, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5079-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5079-2024, 2024
Short summary
Extreme Heat and Wildfire Emissions Enhance Volatile Organic Compounds: Insights on Future Climate
Christian Mark Garcia Salvador, Jeffrey D. Wood, Emma Grace Cochran, Hunter A. Seubert, Bella D. Kamplain, Sam S. Overby, Kevin R. Birdwell, Lianhong Gu, and Melanie A. Mayes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1808,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1808, 2024
Short summary
Assimilation of multiple datasets results in large differences in regional- to global-scale NEE and GPP budgets simulated by a terrestrial biosphere model
Cédric Bacour, Natasha MacBean, Frédéric Chevallier, Sébastien Léonard, Ernest N. Koffi, and Philippe Peylin
Biogeosciences, 20, 1089–1111, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1089-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1089-2023, 2023
Short summary
Tree hydrodynamic modelling of the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum using FETCH3
Marcela Silva, Ashley M. Matheny, Valentijn R. N. Pauwels, Dimetre Triadis, Justine E. Missik, Gil Bohrer, and Edoardo Daly
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2619–2634, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2619-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2619-2022, 2022
Short summary

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

Alexander, R. M., Rollinson, C. R., Babst, F., Trouet, V., and Moore, D. J. P.: Uncertainty in tree-ring based aboveground biomass estimates does not substantially alter growth-climate relationships, Trees-Struct. Funct., in review, 2017.
Asner, G. P., Scurlock, J. M., and Hicke, J. A.: Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 12, 191–205, 2003.
Atkin, O.: New Phytologist: bridging the `plant function–climate modelling divide', New Phytol., 209, 1329–1332, 2016.
Babst, F., Bouriaud, O., Papale, D., Gielen, B., Janssens, I. A., Nikinmaa, E., Ibrom, A., Wu, J., Bernhofer, C., Köstner, B., Grünwald, T., Seufert, G., Ciais, P., and Frank, D.: Above-ground woody carbon sequestration measured from tree rings is coherent with net ecosystem productivity at five eddy-covariance sites, New Phytol., 201, 1289–1303, 2014.
Download
Short summary
How carbon is allocated to different plant tissues (leaves, stem, and roots) determines carbon residence time and thus remains a central challenge for understanding the global carbon cycle. In this paper, we compared standard and novel carbon allocation schemes in CLM4.5 and evaluated them using eddy covariance wood and leaf biomass. The dynamic scheme based on work by Litton improved model performance, but this was dependent on model assumptions about woody turnover.
Share