Articles | Volume 14, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2603-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2603-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
12 May 2021
Methods for assessment of models |
| 12 May 2021
| 12 May 2021
Cutting out the middleman: calibrating and validating a dynamic vegetation model (ED2-PROSPECT5) using remotely sensed surface reflectance
Alexey N. Shiklomanov
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
Michael C. Dietze
Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Istem Fer
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Toni Viskari
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Shawn P. Serbin
Environmental and Climate Sciences Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA
Related authors
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
Short summary
Hector is an easy-to-use, global climate–carbon cycle model. With its quick run time, Hector can provide climate information from a run in a fraction of a second. Hector models on a global and annual basis. Here, we present an updated version of the model, Hector V3. In this paper, we document Hector’s new features. Hector V3 is capable of reproducing historical observations, and its future temperature projections are consistent with those of more complex models.
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
Short summary
We have added a representation of the permafrost carbon feedback to the simple, open-source global carbon–climate model Hector and calibrated the results to be consistent with historical data and Earth system model projections. Our results closely match previous work, estimating around 0.2 °C of warming from permafrost this century. This capability will be useful to explore uncertainties in this feedback and for coupling with integrated assessment models for policy and economic analysis.
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
Short summary
The fortedata R package is an open data notebook from the Forest Resilience Threshold Experiment (FoRTE) – a modeling and manipulative field experiment that tests the effects of disturbance severity and disturbance type on carbon cycling dynamics in a temperate forest. The data included help to interpret how carbon cycling processes respond over time to disturbance.
Claudia Guidi, Sia Gosheva-Oney, Markus Didion, Roman Flury, Lorenz Walthert, Stephan Zimmermann, Brian J. Oney, Pascal A. Niklaus, Esther Thürig, Toni Viskari, Jari Liski, and Frank Hagedorn
Biogeosciences, 22, 4107–4122, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-4107-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-4107-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Predicting soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in forests is crucial to determining the C balance, yet drivers of SOC stocks remain uncertain at large scales. Across a broad environmental gradient in Switzerland, we compared measured SOC stocks with those modeled by Yasso, which is commonly used for greenhouse gas budgets. We show that soil mineral properties and climate are the main controls of SOC stocks, indicating that better accounting of these processes will advance the accuracy of SOC stock predictions.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
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
Short summary
Hector is an easy-to-use, global climate–carbon cycle model. With its quick run time, Hector can provide climate information from a run in a fraction of a second. Hector models on a global and annual basis. Here, we present an updated version of the model, Hector V3. In this paper, we document Hector’s new features. Hector V3 is capable of reproducing historical observations, and its future temperature projections are consistent with those of more complex models.
Jarmo Mäkelä, Laura Arppe, Hannu Fritze, Jussi Heinonsalo, Kristiina Karhu, Jari Liski, Markku Oinonen, Petra Straková, and Toni Viskari
Biogeosciences, 19, 4305–4313, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4305-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4305-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soils account for the largest share of carbon found in terrestrial ecosystems, and accurate depiction of soil carbon decomposition is essential in understanding how permanent these carbon storages are. We present a straightforward way to include carbon isotope concentrations into soil decomposition and carbon storages for the Yasso model, which enables the model to use 13C as a natural tracer to track changes in the underlying soil organic matter decomposition.
Qianyu Li, Shawn P. Serbin, Julien Lamour, Kenneth J. Davidson, Kim S. Ely, and Alistair Rogers
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4313–4329, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4313-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4313-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Stomatal conductance is the rate of water release from leaves’ pores. We implemented an optimal stomatal conductance model in a vegetation model. We then tested and compared it with the existing empirical model in terms of model responses to key environmental variables. We also evaluated the model with measurements at a tropical forest site. Our study suggests that the parameterization of conductance models and current model response to drought are the critical areas for improving models.
Hamze Dokoohaki, Bailey D. Morrison, Ann Raiho, Shawn P. Serbin, Katie Zarada, Luke Dramko, and Michael Dietze
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3233–3252, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3233-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3233-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new terrestrial carbon cycle data assimilation system, built on the PEcAn model–data eco-informatics system, and its application for the development of a proof-of-concept carbon
reanalysisproduct that harmonizes carbon pools (leaf, wood, soil) and fluxes (GPP, Ra, Rh, NEE) across the contiguous United States from 1986–2019. Here, we build on a decade of work on uncertainty propagation to generate the most complete and robust uncertainty accounting available to date.
Weilin Huang, Peter M. van Bodegom, Toni Viskari, Jari Liski, and Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia
Biogeosciences, 19, 1469–1490, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1469-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1469-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work focuses on one of the essential pathways of mycorrhizal impact on C cycles: the mediation of plant litter decomposition. We present a model based on litter chemical quality which precludes a conclusive examination of mycorrhizal impacts on soil C. It improves long-term decomposition predictions and advances our understanding of litter decomposition dynamics. It creates a benchmark in quantitatively examining the impacts of plant–microbe interactions on soil C dynamics.
Toni Viskari, Janne Pusa, Istem Fer, Anna Repo, Julius Vira, and Jari Liski
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1735–1752, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1735-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1735-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We wanted to examine how the chosen measurement data and calibration process affect soil organic carbon model calibration. In our results we found that there is a benefit in using data from multiple litter-bag decomposition experiments simultaneously, even with the required assumptions. Additionally, due to the amount of noise and uncertainties in the system, more advanced calibration methods should be used to parameterize the models.
Olli Nevalainen, Olli Niemitalo, Istem Fer, Antti Juntunen, Tuomas Mattila, Olli Koskela, Joni Kukkamäki, Layla Höckerstedt, Laura Mäkelä, Pieta Jarva, Laura Heimsch, Henriikka Vekuri, Liisa Kulmala, Åsa Stam, Otto Kuusela, Stephanie Gerin, Toni Viskari, Julius Vira, Jari Hyväluoma, Juha-Pekka Tuovinen, Annalea Lohila, Tuomas Laurila, Jussi Heinonsalo, Tuula Aalto, Iivari Kunttu, and Jari Liski
Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 11, 93–109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-93-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-93-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Better monitoring of soil carbon sequestration is needed to understand the best carbon farming practices in different soils and climate conditions. We, the Field Observatory Network (FiON), have therefore established a methodology for monitoring and forecasting agricultural carbon sequestration by combining offline and near-real-time field measurements, weather data, satellite imagery, and modeling. To disseminate our work, we built a website called the Field Observatory (fieldobservatory.org).
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
Short summary
We have added a representation of the permafrost carbon feedback to the simple, open-source global carbon–climate model Hector and calibrated the results to be consistent with historical data and Earth system model projections. Our results closely match previous work, estimating around 0.2 °C of warming from permafrost this century. This capability will be useful to explore uncertainties in this feedback and for coupling with integrated assessment models for policy and economic analysis.
Kathryn I. Wheeler and Michael C. Dietze
Biogeosciences, 18, 1971–1985, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1971-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1971-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Monitoring leaf phenology (i.e., seasonality) allows for tracking the progression of climate change and seasonal variations in a variety of organismal and ecosystem processes. Recent versions of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites allow for the monitoring of a phenological-sensitive index at a high temporal frequency (5–10 min) throughout most of the western hemisphere. Here we show the high potential of these new data to measure the phenology of deciduous forests.
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
Short summary
The fortedata R package is an open data notebook from the Forest Resilience Threshold Experiment (FoRTE) – a modeling and manipulative field experiment that tests the effects of disturbance severity and disturbance type on carbon cycling dynamics in a temperate forest. The data included help to interpret how carbon cycling processes respond over time to disturbance.
Toni Viskari, Maisa Laine, Liisa Kulmala, Jarmo Mäkelä, Istem Fer, and Jari Liski
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5959–5971, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5959-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5959-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The research here established whether a Bayesian statistical method called state data assimilation could be used to improve soil organic carbon (SOC) forecasts. Our test case was a fallow experiment where SOC content was measured over several decades from a plot where all vegetation was removed. Our results showed that state data assimilation improved projections and allowed for the detailed model state be updated with coarse total carbon measurements.
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
Dickinson, R. E.: Land Surface Processes and
Climate–Surface Albedos and Energy Balance, in:
Advances in Geophysics, edited by: Saltzman, B., vol. 25 of Theory of
Climate Proceedings of a Symposium Commemorating the
Two-Hundredth Anniversary of the Academy of Sciences of
Lisbon, Elsevier, 305–353, 1983. a, b, c
Dietze, M. C., Wolosin, M. S., and Clark, J. S.: Capturing Diversity and
Interspecific Variability in Allometries: A Hierarchical Approach, Forest
Ecol. Manage., 256, 1939–1948, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.034,
2008. a
Dietze, M. C., Serbin, S. P., Davidson, C., Desai, A. R., Feng, X., Kelly, R.,
Kooper, R., LeBauer, D., Mantooth, J., McHenry, K., and Wang, D.: A
Quantitative Assessment of a Terrestrial Biosphere Model's Data Needs across
North American Biomes, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo.,
119, 2013JG002392, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002392, 2014. a
Dolezal, J., Jandova, V., Macek, M., and Liancourt, P.: Contrasting Biomass
Allocation Responses across Ontogeny and Stress Gradients Reveal Plant
Adaptations to Drought and Cold, Funct. Ecol., 35, 32–42,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13687, 2021. a
Fang, H., Wei, S., and Liang, S.: Validation of MODIS and CYCLOPES LAI
Products Using Global Field Measurement Data, Remote Sens. Environ.,
119, 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.12.006, 2012. a
Fensholt, R., Sandholt, I., and Rasmussen, M. S.: Evaluation of MODIS LAI,
fAPAR and the Relation between fAPAR and NDVI in a Semi-Arid
Environment Using in Situ Measurements, Remote Sens. Environ., 91,
490–507, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.04.009, 2004. a
Feret, J.-B., François, C., Asner, G. P., Gitelson, A. A., Martin, R. E.,
Bidel, L. P. R., Ustin, S. L., le Maire, G., and Jacquemoud, S.:
PROSPECT-4 and 5: Advances in the Leaf Optical Properties Model
Separating Photosynthetic Pigments, Remote Sens. Environ., 112,
3030–3043, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.02.012, 2008. a, b
Ferraz, A., Saatchi, S., Longo, M., and Clark, D. B.: Tropical Tree
Size–Frequency Distributions from Airborne Lidar, Ecol. Appl., 30, e02154,
https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2154, 2020. a
Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Anderegg, W. R. L., Christoffersen, B. O., Dietze,
M. C., Farrior, C. E., Holm, J. A., Hurtt, G. C., Knox, R. G., Lawrence,
P. J., Lichstein, J. W., Longo, M., Matheny, A. M., Medvigy, D.,
Muller-Landau, H. C., Powell, T. L., Serbin, S. P., Sato, H., Shuman,
J. K., Smith, B., Trugman, A. T., Viskari, T., Verbeeck, H., Weng, E., Xu,
C., Xu, X., Zhang, T., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Vegetation Demographics in
Earth System Models: A Review of Progress and Priorities, Glob.
Change Biol., 24, 35–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13910, 2018. a, b
Forrester, D. I., Tachauer, I. H. H., Annighoefer, P., Barbeito, I., Pretzsch,
H., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Stark, H., Vacchiano, G., Zlatanov, T., Chakraborty,
T., Saha, S., and Sileshi, G. W.: Generalized Biomass and Leaf Area
Allometric Equations for European Tree Species Incorporating Stand
Structure, Tree Age and Climate, Forest Ecol. Manage., 396,
160–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.04.011, 2017. a, b
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D., Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017. a
Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B.: Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple
Sequences, Stat. Sci., 7, 457–472, 1992. a
Goudriaan, J.: Crop Micrometeorology: A Simulation Study, PhD thesis,
Wageningen University, 1977. a
Hartig, F., Minunno, F., and Paul, S.: BayesianTools: General-Purpose
MCMC and SMC Samplers and Tools for Bayesian Statistics, R package version 0.1.7,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesianTools (last access: 10 May 2021), 2019. a
Heinze, C., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W., Fichefet, T., Gao, S., Hall, A., Ivanova, D., Knorr, W., Knutti, R., Löw, A., Ponater, M., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M., Siebesma, P., Teixeira, J., Tselioudis, G., and Vancoppenolle, M.: ESD Reviews: Climate feedbacks in the Earth system and prospects for their evaluation, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 379–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-379-2019, 2019. a
Hikosaka, K. and Terashima, I.: A Model of the Acclimation of Photosynthesis in
the Leaves of C3 Plants to Sun and Shade with Respect to Nitrogen Use,
Plant Cell Environ., 18, 605–618,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00562.x, 1995. a
Hogan, R. J., Quaife, T., and Braghiere, R.: Fast matrix treatment of 3-D radiative transfer in vegetation canopies: SPARTACUS-Vegetation 1.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 339–350, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-339-2018, 2018. a, b, c
Huntingford, C., Fisher, R. A., Mercado, L., Booth, B. B., Sitch, S., Harris,
P. P., Cox, P. M., Jones, C. D., Betts, R. A., Malhi, Y., Harris, G. R.,
Collins, M., and Moorcroft, P.: Towards Quantifying Uncertainty in
Predictions of Amazon “Dieback”, Philos. T. Roy.
Soc. B, 363, 1857–1864,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0028, 2008. a
Iio, A., Hikosaka, K., Anten, N. P. R., Nakagawa, Y., and Ito, A.: Global
Dependence of Field-Observed Leaf Area Index in Woody Species on Climate: A
Systematic Review, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 23, 274–285,
https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12133, 2014. a
Ivanov, V. Y., Bras, R. L., and Vivoni, E. R.: Vegetation-Hydrology Dynamics in
Complex Terrain of Semiarid Areas: 1. A Mechanistic Approach to Modeling
Dynamic Feedbacks, Water Resour. Res., 44, W03429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005588,
2008.
a
Jacquemoud, S., Verhoef, W., Baret, F., Bacour, C., Zarco-Tejada, P. J.,
Asner, G. P., François, C., and Ustin, S. L.: PROSPECT + SAIL
Models: A Review of Use for Vegetation Characterization, Remote Sens.
Environ., 113, Supplement 1, S56–S66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.01.026,
2009. a
Jenkins, J. C., Chojnacky, D. C., Heath, L. S., and Birdsey, R. A.:
Comprehensive Database of Diameter-Based Biomass Regressions for North
American Tree Species, Tech. Rep. NE-GTR-319, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square,
PA, https://doi.org/10.2737/NE-GTR-319, 2004. a, b
Jetz, W., Cavender-Bares, J., Pavlick, R., Schimel, D., Davis, F. W., Asner,
G. P., Guralnick, R., Kattge, J., Latimer, A. M., Moorcroft, P., Schaepman,
M. E., Schildhauer, M. P., Schneider, F. D., Schrodt, F., Stahl, U., and
Ustin, S. L.: Monitoring Plant Functional Diversity from Space, Nature
Plants, 2, 16024, https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.24, 2016. a
Keenan, T. F. and Niinemets, Ü.: Global Leaf Trait Estimates Biased Due to
Plasticity in the Shade, Nature Plants, 3, p. 16201,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.201, 2016. a
Kennedy, R. E., Andréfouët, S., Cohen, W. B., Gómez, C., Griffiths,
P., Hais, M., Healey, S. P., Helmer, E. H., Hostert, P., Lyons, M. B., Meigs,
G. W., Pflugmacher, D., Phinn, S. R., Powell, S. L., Scarth, P., Sen, S.,
Schroeder, T. A., Schneider, A., Sonnenschein, R., Vogelmann, J. E., Wulder,
M. A., and Zhu, Z.: Bringing an Ecological View of Change to
Landsat-Based Remote Sensing, Front. Ecol. Environ.,
12, 339–346, https://doi.org/10.1890/130066, 2014. a
Knorr, W. and Lakshmi, V.: Assimilation of FAPAR and Surface
Temperature into a Land Surface and Vegetation Model, in: Land
Surface Hydrology, Meteorology, and Climate: Observations and
Modeling, American Geophysical Union (AGU), 177–200,
2001. a
Knorr, W., Kaminski, T., Scholze, M., Gobron, N., Pinty, B., Giering, R., and
Mathieu, P.-P.: Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation with a Generic Phenology
Model, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 115, G04017,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001119, 2010. a
Koven, C. D., Knox, R. G., Fisher, R. A., Chambers, J. Q., Christoffersen, B. O., Davies, S. J., Detto, M., Dietze, M. C., Faybishenko, B., Holm, J., Huang, M., Kovenock, M., Kueppers, L. M., Lemieux, G., Massoud, E., McDowell, N. G., Muller-Landau, H. C., Needham, J. F., Norby, R. J., Powell, T., Rogers, A., Serbin, S. P., Shuman, J. K., Swann, A. L. S., Varadharajan, C., Walker, A. P., Wright, S. J., and Xu, C.: Benchmarking and parameter sensitivity of physiological and vegetation dynamics using the Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES) at Barro Colorado Island, Panama, Biogeosciences, 17, 3017–3044, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3017-2020, 2020. a
Lewis, P. and Disney, M.: Spectral Invariants and Scattering across Multiple
Scales from Within-Leaf to Canopy, Remote Sens. Environ., 109,
196–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.12.015, 2007. a, b, c, d
Liu, Y., Xiao, J., Ju, W., Zhu, G., Wu, X., Fan, W., Li, D., and Zhou, Y.:
Satellite-Derived LAI Products Exhibit Large Discrepancies and Can Lead
to Substantial Uncertainty in Simulated Carbon and Water Fluxes, Remote
Sens. Environ., 206, 174–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.024, 2018. a
Loew, A., van Bodegom, P. M., Widlowski, J.-L., Otto, J., Quaife, T., Pinty, B., and Raddatz, T.: Do we (need to) care about canopy radiation schemes in DGVMs? Caveats and potential impacts, Biogeosciences, 11, 1873–1897, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1873-2014, 2014. a
Longo, M., Knox, R. G., Medvigy, D. M., Levine, N. M., Dietze, M. C., Kim, Y., Swann, A. L. S., Zhang, K., Rollinson, C. R., Bras, R. L., Wofsy, S. C., and Moorcroft, P. R.: The biophysics, ecology, and biogeochemistry of functionally diverse, vertically and horizontally heterogeneous ecosystems: the Ecosystem Demography model, version 2.2 – Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4309–4346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4309-2019, 2019. a, b, c, d
Lucht, W., Schaaf, C. B., and Strahler, A. H.: An Algorithm for the Retrieval
of Albedo from Space Using Semiempirical BRDF Models, IEEE T.
Geosci. Remote, 38, 977–998, https://doi.org/10.1109/36.841980,
2000. a, b
McMahon, S. M., Harrison, S. P., Armbruster, W. S., Bartlein, P. J., Beale,
C. M., Edwards, M. E., Kattge, J., Midgley, G., Morin, X., and Prentice,
I. C.: Improving Assessment and Modelling of Climate Change Impacts on Global
Terrestrial Biodiversity, Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 249–259,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.02.012, 2011. a
Meador, W. E. and Weaver, W. R.: Two-Stream Approximations to Radiative
Transfer in Planetary Atmospheres: A Unified Description of
Existing Methods and a New Improvement, J. Atmos.
Sci., 37, 630–643,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<0630:TSATRT>2.0.CO;2, 1980. a
Medvigy, D., Wofsy, S. C., Munger, J. W., Hollinger, D. Y., and Moorcroft,
P. R.: Mechanistic Scaling of Ecosystem Function and Dynamics in Space and
Time: Ecosystem Demography Model Version 2, J. Geophys.
Res.-Biogeo., 114, G01002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000812, 2009. a, b
Moorcroft, P. R., Hurtt, G. C., and Pacala, S. W.: A Method for Scaling
Vegetation Dynamics: The Ecosystem Demography Model (ED), Ecol.
Monogr., 71, 557–586,
https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2001)071[0557:amfsvd]2.0.co;2, 2001. a
Myneni, R. and Williams, D.: On the Relationship between FAPAR and
NDVI, Remote Sens. Environ., 49, 200–211,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(94)90016-7, 1994. a
Niinemets, Ü.: Within-Canopy Variations in Functional Leaf Traits:
Structural, Chemical and Ecological Controls and Diversity of
Responses, in: Canopy Photosynthesis: From Basics to
Applications, edited by: Hikosaka, K., Niinemets, Ü., and Anten, N.
P. R., no. 42 in Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration,
101–141, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7291-4_4, 2016. a
Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Mitchell, K. E., Chen, F., Ek, M. B., Barlage, M.,
Kumar, A., Manning, K., Niyogi, D., Rosero, E., Tewari, M., and Xia, Y.: The
Community Noah Land Surface Model with Multiparameterization Options
(Noah-MP): 1. Model Description and Evaluation with Local-Scale
Measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D12109,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015139, 2011. a
Nouvellon, Y., Moran, M. S., Seen, D. L., Bryant, R., Rambal, S., Ni, W.,
Bégué, A., Chehbouni, A., Emmerich, W. E., Heilman, P., and Qi, J.:
Coupling a Grassland Ecosystem Model with Landsat Imagery for a 10-Year
Simulation of Carbon and Water Budgets, Remote Sens. Environ., 78,
131–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00255-3, 2001. a
Oleson, K. W., Lawrence, D. M., Bonan, G. B., Drewniak, B., Huang, M., Koven,
C. D., Levis, S., Li, F., Riley, W. J., Subin, Z. M., Swenson, S. C.,
Thornton, P., Bozbiyik, A., Fisher, R., Heald, C. L., Kluzek, E., Lamarque,
J.-F., Lawrence, P. J., Leung, R., Lipscom, W., Muszala, S., Ricciuto, D. M.,
Sacks, W., Sun, Y., Tang, J., and Zong-Liang, Y.: Technical Description of
Version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM), Tech. Rep.
NCAR/TN-503+STR, NCAR Earth System Laboratory Climate and Global Dynamics
Division, 2013. a, b, c
Pacala, S. W. and Deutschman, D. H.: Details That Matter: The Spatial
Distribution of Individual Trees Maintains Forest Ecosystem Function, Oikos,
74, 357–365, https://doi.org/10.2307/3545980, 1995. a
Pasquarella, V. J., Holden, C. E., Kaufman, L., and Woodcock, C. E.: From
Imagery to Ecology: Leveraging Time Series of All Available Landsat
Observations to Map and Monitor Ecosystem State and Dynamics, Remote Sensing
in Ecology and Conservation, 2, 152–170, https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.24, 2016. a
Peylin, P., Bacour, C., MacBean, N., Leonard, S., Rayner, P., Kuppel, S., Koffi, E., Kane, A., Maignan, F., Chevallier, F., Ciais, P., and Prunet, P.: A new stepwise carbon cycle data assimilation system using multiple data streams to constrain the simulated land surface carbon cycle, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3321–3346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3321-2016, 2016. a
Pinty, B., Gobron, N., Widlowski, J.-L., Lavergne, T., and Verstraete, M. M.:
Synergy between 1-D and 3-D Radiation Transfer Models to Retrieve
Vegetation Canopy Properties from Remote Sensing Data, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 109, D21205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005214, 2004. a
Quaife, T., Lewis, P., De Kauwe, M., Williams, M., Law, B. E., Disney, M., and
Bowyer, P.: Assimilating Canopy Reflectance Data into an Ecosystem Model with
an Ensemble Kalman Filter, Remote Sens. Environ., 112,
1347–1364, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.05.020, 2008. a
Raczka, B., Dietze, M. C., Serbin, S. P., and Davis, K. J.: What Limits
Predictive Certainty of Long-term Carbon Uptake?, J. Geophys.
Res.-Biogeo., 123, 3570–3588, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jg004504, 2018. a
Robakowski, P., Wyka, T., Samardakiewicz, S., and Kierzkowski, D.: Growth,
Photosynthesis, and Needle Structure of Silver Fir (Abies Alba Mill.)
Seedlings under Different Canopies, Forest Ecol. Manage., 201,
211–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.06.029, 2004. a
Running, S. W., Nemani, R. R., Heinsch, F. A., Zhao, M., Reeves, M., and
Hashimoto, H.: A Continuous Satellite-Derived Measure of Global
Terrestrial Primary Production, BioScience, 54, 547–560,
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0547:ACSMOG]2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Schaaf, C. and Wang, Z.: MCD43A1 MODIS/Terra+Aqua BRDF/Albedo
Model Parameters Daily L3 Global – 500m V006, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC),
https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD43A1.006, 2015. a
Schaepman-Strub, G., Schaepman, M. E., Painter, T. H., Dangel, S., and
Martonchik, J. V.: Reflectance Quantities in Optical Remote
Sensing – Definitions and Case Studies, Remote Sens.
Environ., 103, 27–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.03.002, 2006.
a, b, c
Schimel, D., Pavlick, R., Fisher, J. B., Asner, G. P., Saatchi, S., Townsend,
P., Miller, C., Frankenberg, C., Hibbard, K., and Cox, P.: Observing
Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Carbon Cycle from Space, Glob. Change
Biol., 21, 1762–1776, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12822, 2015. a
Schürmann, G. J., Kaminski, T., Köstler, C., Carvalhais, N., Voßbeck, M., Kattge, J., Giering, R., Rödenbeck, C., Heimann, M., and Zaehle, S.: Constraining a land-surface model with multiple observations by application of the MPI-Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation System V1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2999–3026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2999-2016, 2016. a
Serbin, S. P., Dillaway, D. N., Kruger, E. L., and Townsend, P. A.: Leaf
Optical Properties Reflect Variation in Photosynthetic Metabolism and Its
Sensitivity to Temperature, J. Exp. Bot., 63, 489–502,
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err294, 2012. a
Shiklomanov, A. N.: Cutting out the middle man: Calibrating and validating a dynamic vegetation model using remotely sensed surface reflectance, Open Science Framework (OSF), https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B6UMF, 2021. a
Shiklomanov, A. N., Dietze, M. C., Viskari, T., Townsend, P. A., and Serbin,
S. P.: Quantifying the Influences of Spectral Resolution on Uncertainty in
Leaf Trait Estimates through a Bayesian Approach to RTM Inversion,
Remote Sens. Environ., 183, 226–238,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.023, 2016. a, b, c, d
Shiklomanov, A. N., Bond-Lamberty, B., Atkins, J. W., and Gough, C. M.:
Structure and Parameter Uncertainty in Centennial Projections of Forest
Community Structure and Carbon Cycling, Glob. Change Biol., 26,
6080–6096, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15164, 2020a. a
Shiklomanov, A. N., Cowdery, E. M., Bahn, M., Byun, C., Jansen, S., Kramer, K.,
Minden, V., Niinemets, Ü., Onoda, Y., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., and Dietze,
M. C.: Does the Leaf Economic Spectrum Hold within Plant Functional Types?
A Bayesian Multivariate Trait Meta-analysis, Ecol. Appl., 30, 02064,
https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2064, 2020b. a
Singh, A., Serbin, S. P., McNeil, B. E., Kingdon, C. C., and Townsend, P. A.:
Imaging Spectroscopy Algorithms for Mapping Canopy Foliar Chemical and
Morphological Traits and Their Uncertainties, Ecol. Appl., 25,
2180–2197, https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2098.1, 2015. a, b
ter Braak, C. J. F. and Vrugt, J. A.: Differential Evolution Markov Chain
with Snooker Updater and Fewer Chains, Stat. Comput., 18,
435–446, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-008-9104-9, 2008. a
Verhoef, W.: Light Scattering by Leaf Layers with Application to Canopy
Reflectance Modeling: The SAIL Model, Remote Sens. Environ., 16,
125–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(84)90057-9, 1984. a, b, c
Viskari, T., Hardiman, B., Desai, A. R., and Dietze, M. C.: Model-Data
Assimilation of Multiple Phenological Observations to Constrain and Predict
Leaf Area Index, Ecol. Appl., 25, 546–558,
https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0497.1, 2015. a
Viskari, T., Shiklomanov, A., Dietze, M. C., and Serbin, S. P.: The Influence
of Canopy Radiation Parameter Uncertainty on Model Projections of Terrestrial
Carbon and Energy Cycling, PLOS ONE, 14, e0216512,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216512, 2019. a, b, c, d
Wang, Z., Zeng, X., Barlage, M., Dickinson, R. E., Gao, F., and Schaaf, C. B.:
Using MODIS BRDF and Albedo Data to Evaluate Global Model Land
Surface Albedo, J. Hydrometeorol., 5, 3–14,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2004)005<0003:UMBAAD>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Widlowski, J.-L., Taberner, M., Pinty, B., Bruniquel-Pinel, V., Disney, M.,
Fernandes, R., Gastellu-Etchegorry, J.-P., Gobron, N., Kuusk, A., Lavergne,
T., Leblanc, S., Lewis, P. E., Martin, E., Mõttus, M., North, P. R. J.,
Qin, W., Robustelli, M., Rochdi, N., Ruiloba, R., Soler, C., Thompson, R.,
Verhoef, W., Verstraete, M. M., and Xie, D.: Third Radiation Transfer Model
Intercomparison (RAMI) Exercise: Documenting Progress in Canopy
Reflectance Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112,
D09111, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007821, 2007. a, b
Widlowski, J.-L., Mio, C., Disney, M., Adams, J., Andredakis, I., Atzberger,
C., Brennan, J., Busetto, L., Chelle, M., Ceccherini, G., Colombo, R.,
Côté, J.-F., Eenmäe, A., Essery, R., Gastellu-Etchegorry,
J.-P., Gobron, N., Grau, E., Haverd, V., Homolová, L., Huang, H., Hunt,
L., Kobayashi, H., Koetz, B., Kuusk, A., Kuusk, J., Lang, M., Lewis, P. E.,
Lovell, J. L., Malenovský, Z., Meroni, M., Morsdorf, F., Mõttus, M.,
Ni-Meister, W., Pinty, B., Rautiainen, M., Schlerf, M., Somers, B.,
Stuckens, J., Verstraete, M. M., Yang, W., Zhao, F., and Zenone, T.: The
Fourth Phase of the Radiative Transfer Model Intercomparison (RAMI)
Exercise: Actual Canopy Scenarios and Conformity Testing, Remote Sens.
Environ., 169, 418–437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.08.016, 2015. a
Xu, X., Konings, A. G., Longo, M., Feldman, A., Xu, L., Saatchi, S., Wu, D.,
Wu, J., and Moorcroft, P.: Leaf Surface Water, Not Plant Water Stress, Drives
Diurnal Variation in Tropical Forest Canopy Water Content, New Phytol.,
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17254, online first, 2021. a
Yan, K., Park, T., Yan, G., Liu, Z., Yang, B., Chen, C., Nemani, R. R.,
Knyazikhin, Y., and Myneni, R. B.: Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product
Collection 6. Part 2: Validation and Intercomparison, Remote
Sensing, 8, 460, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8060460, 2016. a
Yuan, H., Dai, Y., Dickinson, R. E., Pinty, B., Shangguan, W., Zhang, S., Wang,
L., and Zhu, S.: Reexamination and Further Development of Two-Stream Canopy
Radiative Transfer Models for Global Land Modeling, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 9, 113–129, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000773, 2017. a, b, c, d, e
Zeide, B.: Comparison of Self-Thinning Models: An Exercise in Reasoning, Trees,
24, 1117–1126, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-010-0484-z, 2010. a
Zhang, Q., Yao, T., Huemmrich, K. F., Middleton, E. M., Lyapustin, A., and
Wang, Y.: Evaluating Impacts of Snow, Surface Water, Soil and Vegetation on
Empirical Vegetation and Snow Indices for the Utqiaġvik Tundra
Ecosystem in Alaska with the LVS3 Model, Remote Sens.
Environ., 240, 111677, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111677, 2020. a
Zobitz, J., Moore, D. J., Quaife, T., Braswell, B. H., Bergeson, A., Anthony,
J. A., and Monson, R. K.: Joint Data Assimilation of Satellite Reflectance
and Net Ecosystem Exchange Data Constrains Ecosystem Carbon Fluxes at a
High-Elevation Subalpine Forest, Agr. Forest Meteorol.,
195–196, 73–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.011, 2014. a
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.
Airborne and satellite images are a great resource for calibrating and evaluating computer...
