Articles | Volume 13, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3299-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3299-2020
Model evaluation paper
 | 
17 Jul 2020
Model evaluation paper |  | 17 Jul 2020

Quantitative assessment of fire and vegetation properties in simulations with fire-enabled vegetation models from the Fire Model Intercomparison Project

Stijn Hantson, Douglas I. Kelley, Almut Arneth, Sandy P. Harrison, Sally Archibald, Dominique Bachelet, Matthew Forrest, Thomas Hickler, Gitta Lasslop, Fang Li, Stephane Mangeon, Joe R. Melton, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, I. Colin Prentice, Tim Sheehan, Stephen Sitch, Lina Teckentrup, Apostolos Voulgarakis, and Chao Yue

Related authors

State of Wildfires 2023–2024
Matthew W. Jones, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Maria Lucia F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Andrew J. Hartley, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Joe R. McNorton, Fiona R. Spuler, Jakob B. Wessel, John T. Abatzoglou, Liana O. Anderson, Niels Andela, Sally Archibald, Dolors Armenteras, Eleanor Burke, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Hamish Clarke, Stefan H. Doerr, Paulo M. Fernandes, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Harris, Piyush Jain, Crystal A. Kolden, Tiina Kurvits, Seppe Lampe, Sarah Meier, Stacey New, Mark Parrington, Morgane M. G. Perron, Yuquan Qu, Natasha S. Ribeiro, Bambang H. Saharjo, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Jacquelyn K. Shuman, Veerachai Tanpipat, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, and Gavriil Xanthopoulos
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3601–3685, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, 2024
Short summary
Combined CO2 measurement record indicates decreased Amazon forest carbon uptake, offset by Savannah carbon release
Santiago Botía, Saqr Munassar, Thomas Koch, Danilo Custodio, Luana S. Basso, Shujiro Komiya, Jost V. Lavric, David Walter, Manuel Gloor, Giordane Martins, Stijn Naus, Gerbrand Koren, Ingrid Luijkx, Stijn Hantson, John B. Miller, Wouter Peters, Christian Rödenbeck, and Christoph Gerbig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1735,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1735, 2024
Short summary
Scenario setup and forcing data for impact model evaluation and impact attribution within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP3a)
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Multi-decadal trends and variability in burned area from the fifth version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED5)
Yang Chen, Joanne Hall, Dave van Wees, Niels Andela, Stijn Hantson, Louis Giglio, Guido R. van der Werf, Douglas C. Morton, and James T. Randerson
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5227–5259, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5227-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5227-2023, 2023
Short summary
Burned area and carbon emissions across northwestern boreal North America from 2001–2019
Stefano Potter, Sol Cooperdock, Sander Veraverbeke, Xanthe Walker, Michelle C. Mack, Scott J. Goetz, Jennifer Baltzer, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Arden Burrell, Catherine Dieleman, Nancy French, Stijn Hantson, Elizabeth E. Hoy, Liza Jenkins, Jill F. Johnstone, Evan S. Kane, Susan M. Natali, James T. Randerson, Merritt R. Turetsky, Ellen Whitman, Elizabeth Wiggins, and Brendan M. Rogers
Biogeosciences, 20, 2785–2804, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2785-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2785-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Biogeosciences
Simulating Ips typographus L. outbreak dynamics and their influence on carbon balance estimates with ORCHIDEE r8627
Guillaume Marie, Jina Jeong, Hervé Jactel, Gunnar Petter, Maxime Cailleret, Matthew J. McGrath, Vladislav Bastrikov, Josefine Ghattas, Bertrand Guenet, Anne Sofie Lansø, Kim Naudts, Aude Valade, Chao Yue, and Sebastiaan Luyssaert
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8023–8047, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8023-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8023-2024, 2024
Short summary
Biological nitrogen fixation of natural and agricultural vegetation simulated with LPJmL 5.7.9
Stephen Björn Wirth, Johanna Braun, Jens Heinke, Sebastian Ostberg, Susanne Rolinski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Fabian Stenzel, Werner von Bloh, Friedhelm Taube, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7889–7914, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7889-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7889-2024, 2024
Short summary
Learning from conceptual models – a study of the emergence of cooperation towards resource protection in a social–ecological system
Saeed Harati-Asl, Liliana Perez, and Roberto Molowny-Horas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7423–7443, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7423-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7423-2024, 2024
Short summary
The biogeochemical model Biome-BGCMuSo v6.2 provides plausible and accurate simulations of the carbon cycle in central European beech forests
Katarína Merganičová, Ján Merganič, Laura Dobor, Roland Hollós, Zoltán Barcza, Dóra Hidy, Zuzana Sitková, Pavel Pavlenda, Hrvoje Marjanovic, Daniel Kurjak, Michal Bošel'a, Doroteja Bitunjac, Maša Zorana Ostrogović Sever, Jiří Novák, Peter Fleischer, and Tomáš Hlásny
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7317–7346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7317-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7317-2024, 2024
Short summary
DeepPhenoMem V1.0: deep learning modelling of canopy greenness dynamics accounting for multi-variate meteorological memory effects on vegetation phenology
Guohua Liu, Mirco Migliavacca, Christian Reimers, Basil Kraft, Markus Reichstein, Andrew D. Richardson, Lisa Wingate, Nicolas Delpierre, Hui Yang, and Alexander J. Winkler
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6683–6701, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6683-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6683-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Abramowitz, G., Herger, N., Gutmann, E., Hammerling, D., Knutti, R., Leduc, M., Lorenz, R., Pincus, R., and Schmidt, G. A.: ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 91–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019, 2019. 
Ahlström, A., Xia, J., Arneth, A., Luo, Y., and Smith, B.: Importance of vegetation dynamics for future terrestrial carbon cycling, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 054019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054019, 2015. 
Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., and McDowell, N. G.: On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene, Ecosphere, 6, 1–55, 2015. 
Alonso-Canas, I. and Chuvieco, E.: Global burned area mapping from ENVISAT-MERIS and MODIS active fire data, Remote Sens. Environ., 163, 140–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.03.011, 2015. 
Download

The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.

Short summary
Global fire–vegetation models are widely used, but there has been limited evaluation of how well they represent various aspects of fire regimes. Here we perform a systematic evaluation of simulations made by nine FireMIP models in order to quantify their ability to reproduce a range of fire and vegetation benchmarks. While some FireMIP models are better at representing certain aspects of the fire regime, no model clearly outperforms all other models across the full range of variables assessed.