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
Soil nitrous oxide emissions from global land ecosystems and their drivers within the LPJ-GUESS model (v4.1)
Jianyong Ma, Almut Arneth, Benjamin Smith, Peter Anthoni, Xu-Ri, Peter Eliasson, David Wårlind, Martin Wittenbrink, and Stefan Olin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3131–3155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3131-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3131-2025, 2025
Short summary
Parameterization toolbox for a physical–biogeochemical model compatible with FABM – a case study: the coupled 1D GOTM–ECOSMO E2E for the Sylt–Rømø Bight, North Sea
Hoa Nguyen, Ute Daewel, Neil Banas, and Corinna Schrum
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2961–2982, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2961-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2961-2025, 2025
Short summary
H2MV (v1.0): global physically constrained deep learning water cycle model with vegetation
Zavud Baghirov, Martin Jung, Markus Reichstein, Marco Körner, and Basil Kraft
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2921–2943, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2921-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2921-2025, 2025
Short summary
NN-TOC v1: global prediction of total organic carbon in marine sediments using deep neural networks
Naveenkumar Parameswaran, Everardo González, Ewa Burwicz-Galerne, Malte Braack, and Klaus Wallmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2521–2544, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2521-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2521-2025, 2025
Short summary
China Wildfire Emission Dataset (ChinaWED v1) for the period 2012–2022
Zhengyang Lin, Ling Huang, Hanqin Tian, Anping Chen, and Xuhui Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2509–2520, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2509-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2509-2025, 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