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
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

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.
Share