Articles | Volume 9, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3569-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3569-2016
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
04 Oct 2016
Methods for assessment of models |  | 04 Oct 2016

Consistent assimilation of multiple data streams in a carbon cycle data assimilation system

Natasha MacBean, Philippe Peylin, Frédéric Chevallier, Marko Scholze, and Gregor Schürmann

Related authors

Assimilation of multiple datasets results in large differences in regional- to global-scale NEE and GPP budgets simulated by a terrestrial biosphere model
Cédric Bacour, Natasha MacBean, Frédéric Chevallier, Sébastien Léonard, Ernest N. Koffi, and Philippe Peylin
Biogeosciences, 20, 1089–1111, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1089-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1089-2023, 2023
Short summary
Testing water fluxes and storage from two hydrology configurations within the ORCHIDEE land surface model across US semi-arid sites
Natasha MacBean, Russell L. Scott, Joel A. Biederman, Catherine Ottlé, Nicolas Vuichard, Agnès Ducharne, Thomas Kolb, Sabina Dore, Marcy Litvak, and David J. P. Moore
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5203–5230, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5203-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5203-2020, 2020
Land surface model parameter optimisation using in situ flux data: comparison of gradient-based versus random search algorithms (a case study using ORCHIDEE v1.9.5.2)
Vladislav Bastrikov, Natasha MacBean, Cédric Bacour, Diego Santaren, Sylvain Kuppel, and Philippe Peylin
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4739–4754, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4739-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4739-2018, 2018
Short summary
Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015)
Wei Li, Natasha MacBean, Philippe Ciais, Pierre Defourny, Céline Lamarche, Sophie Bontemps, Richard A. Houghton, and Shushi Peng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 219–234, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-219-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-219-2018, 2018
Short summary
Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests
Francesc Montané, Andrew M. Fox, Avelino F. Arellano, Natasha MacBean, M. Ross Alexander, Alex Dye, Daniel A. Bishop, Valerie Trouet, Flurin Babst, Amy E. Hessl, Neil Pederson, Peter D. Blanken, Gil Bohrer, Christopher M. Gough, Marcy E. Litvak, Kimberly A. Novick, Richard P. Phillips, Jeffrey D. Wood, and David J. P. Moore
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3499–3517, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Biogeosciences
Process-based modeling of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence with VISIT-SIF version 1.0
Tatsuya Miyauchi, Makoto Saito, Hibiki M. Noda, Akihiko Ito, Tomomichi Kato, and Tsuneo Matsunaga
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2329–2347, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2329-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2329-2025, 2025
Short summary
Including the phosphorus cycle into the LPJ-GUESS dynamic global vegetation model (v4.1, r10994) – global patterns and temporal trends of N and P primary production limitation
Mateus Dantas de Paula, Matthew Forrest, David Warlind, João Paulo Darela Filho, Katrin Fleischer, Anja Rammig, and Thomas Hickler
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2249–2274, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2249-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2249-2025, 2025
Short summary
A comprehensive land-surface vegetation model for multi-stream data assimilation, D&B v1.0
Wolfgang Knorr, Matthew Williams, Tea Thum, Thomas Kaminski, Michael Voßbeck, Marko Scholze, Tristan Quaife, T. Luke Smallman, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Tim Green, Sönke Zaehle, Mika Aurela, Alexandre Bouvet, Emanuel Bueechi, Wouter Dorigo, Tarek S. El-Madany, Mirco Migliavacca, Marika Honkanen, Yann H. Kerr, Anna Kontu, Juha Lemmetyinen, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Arnaud Mialon, Tuuli Miinalainen, Gaétan Pique, Amanda Ojasalo, Shaun Quegan, Peter J. Rayner, Pablo Reyes-Muñoz, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Mike Schwank, Jochem Verrelst, Songyan Zhu, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Matthias Drusch
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2137–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, 2025
Short summary
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

Cited articles

Alton, P. B.: From site-level to global simulation: Reconciling carbon, water and energy fluxes over different spatial scales using a process-based ecophysiological land-surface model, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 176, 111–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.03.010, 2013.
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Kidston, M., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Jones, C., Jung, M., Myneni, R., and Zhu, Z.: Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models, J. Climate, 26, 6801–6843, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00417.1, 2013.
Bacour, C., Peylin, P., MacBean, N., Rayner, P. J., Delage, F., Chevallier, F., Weiss, M., Demarty, J., Santaren, D., Baret, F., Berveiller, D., Dufrêne, E., and Prunet, P.: Joint assimilation of eddy covariance flux measurements and FAPAR products over temperate forests within a process-oriented biosphere model, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 120, 1839–1857, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG002966, 2015.
Barrett, D. J., Hill, M. J., Hutley, L. B., Beringer, J., Xu, J. H., Cook, G. D., and Williams, R. J.: Prospects for improving savanna biophysical models by using multiple-constraints model-data assimilation methods, Aust. J. Botany, 53, 689–714, 2005.
Bloom, A. A. and Williams, M.: Constraining ecosystem carbon dynamics in a data-limited world: integrating ecological “common sense” in a model-data fusion framework, Biogeosciences, 12, 1299–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-1299-2015, 2015.
Download
Short summary
Model projections of the response of the terrestrial biosphere to anthropogenic emissions are uncertain, in part due to unknown fixed parameters in a model. Data assimilation can address this by using observations to optimise these parameter values. Using multiple types of data is beneficial for constraining different model processes, but it can also pose challenges in a DA context. This paper demonstrates and discusses the issues involved using toy models and examples from existing literature.
Share