Articles | Volume 14, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2603-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2603-2021
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
12 May 2021
Methods for assessment of models |  | 12 May 2021

Cutting out the middleman: calibrating and validating a dynamic vegetation model (ED2-PROSPECT5) using remotely sensed surface reflectance

Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Michael C. Dietze, Istem Fer, Toni Viskari, and Shawn P. Serbin

Related authors

Hector V3.2.0: functionality and performance of a reduced-complexity climate model
Kalyn Dorheim, Skylar Gering, Robert Gieseke, Corinne Hartin, Leeya Pressburger, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Steven J. Smith, Claudia Tebaldi, Dawn L. Woodard, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4855–4869, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024, 2024
Short summary
A permafrost implementation in the simple carbon–climate model Hector v.2.3pf
Dawn L. Woodard, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Ben Kravitz, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4751–4767, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, 2021
Short summary
The fortedata R package: open-science datasets from a manipulative experiment testing forest resilience
Jeff W. Atkins, Elizabeth Agee, Alexandra Barry, Kyla M. Dahlin, Kalyn Dorheim, Maxim S. Grigri, Lisa T. Haber, Laura J. Hickey, Aaron G. Kamoske, Kayla Mathes, Catherine McGuigan, Evan Paris, Stephanie C. Pennington, Carly Rodriguez, Autym Shafer, Alexey Shiklomanov, Jason Tallant, Christopher M. Gough, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 943–952, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-943-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-943-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Biogeosciences
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
FESOM2.1-REcoM3-MEDUSA2: an ocean–sea ice–biogeochemistry model coupled to a sediment model
Ying Ye, Guy Munhoven, Peter Köhler, Martin Butzin, Judith Hauck, Özgür Gürses, and Christoph Völker
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 977–1000, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-977-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-977-2025, 2025
Short summary
Satellite-based modeling of wetland methane emissions on a global scale (SatWetCH4 1.0)
Juliette Bernard, Elodie Salmon, Marielle Saunois, Shushi Peng, Penélope Serrano-Ortiz, Antoine Berchet, Palingamoorthy Gnanamoorthy, Joachim Jansen, and Philippe Ciais
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 863–883, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-863-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-863-2025, 2025
Short summary
Systematic underestimation of type-specific ecosystem process variability in the Community Land Model v5 over Europe
Christian Poppe Terán, Bibi S. Naz, Harry Vereecken, Roland Baatz, Rosie A. Fisher, and Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 287–317, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-287-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-287-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Asner, G. P.: Biophysical and Biochemical Sources of Variability in Canopy Reflectance, Remote Sens. Environ., 64, 234–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00014-5, 1998. a
Baker, I. T., Prihodko, L., Denning, A. S., Goulden, M., Miller, S., and da Rocha, H. R.: Seasonal Drought Stress in the Amazon: Reconciling Models and Observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113, G00B01, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000644, 2008. a
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011. a
Bonan, G. B.: Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests, Science, 320, 1444–1449, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155121, 2008. a, b
Combal, B., Baret, F., Weiss, M., Trubuil, A., Macé, D., Pragnère, A., Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y., and Wang, L.: Retrieval of Canopy Biophysical Variables from Bidirectional Reflectance: Using Prior Information to Solve the Ill-Posed Inverse Problem, Remote Sens. Environ., 84, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00035-4, 2003. a, b
Download
Short summary
Airborne and satellite images are a great resource for calibrating and evaluating computer models of ecosystems. Typically, researchers derive ecosystem properties from these images and then compare models against these derived properties. Here, we present an alternative approach where we modify a model to predict what the satellite would see more directly. We then show how this approach can be used to calibrate model parameters using airborne data from forest sites in the northeastern US.
Share