Geoscientific Model Development
Geoscientific Model Development
GMD
Articles | Volume 19, issue 13
Articles | Volume 19, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6079-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6079-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 19, issue 13
Development and technical paper
 | 
09 Jul 2026
Development and technical paper |  | 09 Jul 2026

Calibration of the MEMS v1 model over a continental soil inventory: a comparison of MCMC and 4DEnVar methods

Toni Viskari, Tristan Quaife, Fernando Fahl, Yao Zhang, and Emanuele Lugato

Viewed

Total article views: 1,830 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
1,187 509 134 1,830 37 105 180
  • HTML: 1,187
  • PDF: 509
  • XML: 134
  • Total: 1,830
  • Supplement: 37
  • BibTeX: 105
  • EndNote: 180
Views and downloads (calculated since 26 Jan 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 26 Jan 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,830 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,698 with geography defined and 132 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 31 Jul 2026
Download
Short summary
In this work we examined how different assumptions regarding soil carbon model calibration affect the resulting model performance. We found that how the litter inputs are set have a meaningful impact on the calibrated model parameters. Furthermore, two calibration methods produced parameter sets that differed meaningfully from each other but fit the validation dataset equally well. These results raise meaningful questions how we evaluate soil carbon model performance.
Read more
Share