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 V3.1.1: functionality and performance of a reduced-complexity climate model
Kalyn Dorheim, Skylar Gering, Robert Gieseke, Corinne Hartin, Leeya Pressburger, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Steve J. Smith, Claudia Tebaldi, Dawn Woodard, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1477,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1477, 2023
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
Modeling boreal forest soil dynamics with the microbially explicit soil model MIMICS+ (v1.0)
Elin Ristorp Aas, Heleen A. de Wit, and Terje K. Berntsen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2929–2959, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2929-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2929-2024, 2024
Short summary
Optimal enzyme allocation leads to the constrained enzyme hypothesis: the Soil Enzyme Steady Allocation Model (SESAM; v3.1)
Thomas Wutzler, Christian Reimers, Bernhard Ahrens, and Marion Schrumpf
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2705–2725, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2705-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2705-2024, 2024
Short summary
Implementing a dynamic representation of fire and harvest including subgrid-scale heterogeneity in the tile-based land surface model CLASSIC v1.45
Salvatore R. Curasi, Joe R. Melton, Elyn R. Humphreys, Txomin Hermosilla, and Michael A. Wulder
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2683–2704, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, 2024
Short summary
Inferring the tree regeneration niche from inventory data using a dynamic forest model
Yannek Käber, Florian Hartig, and Harald Bugmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2727–2753, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2727-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2727-2024, 2024
Short summary
Optimising CH4 simulations from the LPJ-GUESS model v4.1 using an adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm
Jalisha T. Kallingal, Johan Lindström, Paul A. Miller, Janne Rinne, Maarit Raivonen, and Marko Scholze
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2299–2324, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2299-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2299-2024, 2024
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.