Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-8-5089-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-8-5089-2015

Submitted as: development and technical paper 02 Jul 2015

Submitted as: development and technical paper | 02 Jul 2015

Review status: this preprint was under review for the journal GMD but the revision was not accepted.

A simplified gross primary production and evapotranspiration model for boreal coniferous forests – is a generic calibration sufficient?

F. Minunno1, M. Peltoniemi2, S. Launiainen2, M. Aurela3, A. Lindroth4, A. Lohila3, I. Mammarella5, K. Minkkinen1, and A. Mäkelä1 F. Minunno et al.
  • 1Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, Helsinki 00014, Finland
  • 2Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokiniemenkuja 1, 01301 Vantaa, Finland
  • 3Finnish Meteorological Institute, 00560 Helsinki, Finland
  • 4Lund University, Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund, Sweden
  • 5Department of Physics, P.O. Box 48, 00014, University of Helsinki, Finland

Abstract. The problem of model complexity has been lively debated in environmental sciences as well as in the forest modelling community. Simple models are less input demanding and their calibration involves a lower number of parameters, but they might be suitable only at local scale.

In this work we calibrated a simplified ecosystem process model (PRELES) to data from multiple sites and we tested if PRELES can be used at regional scale to estimate the carbon and water fluxes of Boreal conifer forests. We compared a multi-site (M-S) with site-specific (S-S) calibrations. Model calibrations and evaluations were carried out by the means of the Bayesian method; Bayesian calibration (BC) and Bayesian model comparison (BMC) were used to quantify the uncertainty in model parameters and model structure. To evaluate model performances BMC results were combined with more classical analysis of model-data mismatch (M-DM). Evapotranspiration (ET) and gross primary production (GPP) measurements collected in 10 sites of Finland and Sweden were used in the study.

Calibration results showed that similar estimates were obtained for the parameters at which model outputs are most sensitive. No significant differences were encountered in the predictions of the multi-site and site-specific versions of PRELES with exception of a site with agricultural history (Alkkia).

Although PRELES predicted GPP better than evapotranspiration, we concluded that the model can be reliably used at regional scale to simulate carbon and water fluxes of Boreal forests.

Our analyses underlined also the importance of using long and carefully collected flux datasets in model calibration. In fact, even a single site can provide model calibrations that can be applied at a wider spatial scale, since it covers a wide range of variability in climatic conditions.

F. Minunno et al.

 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

F. Minunno et al.

F. Minunno et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,082 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
725 302 55 1,082 36 62
  • HTML: 725
  • PDF: 302
  • XML: 55
  • Total: 1,082
  • BibTeX: 36
  • EndNote: 62
Views and downloads (calculated since 02 Jul 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 02 Jul 2015)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 26 Oct 2021