the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A new temperature-photoperiod coupled phenology module in LPJ-GUESS model v4.1: optimizing estimation of terrestrial carbon and water processes
Shouzhi Chen
Mingwei Li
Zitong Jia
Yishuo Cui
Abstract. Vegetation phenological shifts impact the terrestrial carbon and water cycle, and affects local climate system through biophysical and biochemical processes between biosphere and atmosphere. Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), serving as pivotal simulation tools for investigating terrestrial ecosystem carbon and water cycles, typically incorporate representations of vegetation phenological processes. Nevertheless, it is still a challenge to achieve accurate simulation of vegetation phenology in the DGVMs. Here, we developed and coupled the spring and autumn phenology models into one of the DGVMs, LPJ-GUESS. These process-based phenology models driven by temperature and photoperiod, and are parameterized for deciduous trees and shrubs using remote sensing-based phenological observations and reanalysis dataset ERA5 land. The results show that the developed LPJ-GUESS with new phenology modules substantially improved the accuracy in capturing start and end dates of growing seasons. For the start of growing season, the simulated RMSE for deciduous tree and shrubs decreased by 8.04 and 17.34, respectively. For the autumn phenology, the simulated RMSE for deciduous tree and shrubs decreased by 22.61 and 17.60, respectively. Interestingly, we have also found that differences in simulated start and end of growing season can largely alter the ecological niches and competitive relationships among different plant functional types (PFTs), and subsequentially impact the community structure and in turn influence the terrestrial carbon and water cycles. Hence, our study highlights the importance getting accurate of phenology estimation to reduce the uncertainties in plant distribution and terrestrial carbon and water cycling.
- Preprint
(1520 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(640 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Shouzhi Chen et al.
Status: open (until 12 Jan 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-212', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Dec 2023
reply
The paper focuses on enhancing the accuracy of vegetation phenology simulation in Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs). The authors developed and integrated spring and autumn phenology models into the LPJ-GUESS DGVM, driven by temperature and photoperiod. The models were parameterized using remote sensing-based phenological observations and ERA5 land reanalysis dataset. The results demonstrate that the implementation of the new phenology modules in LPJ-GUESS significantly improved the accuracy of capturing the start and end dates of growing seasons. An interesting finding of this study is that variations in the simulated start and end of the growing season can have a substantial impact on the ecological niches and competitive relationships among different plant functional types (PFTs). Overall, this study emphasizes the importance of accurate phenology estimation to reduce uncertainties in plant distribution and terrestrial carbon and water cycling. The integration of the new phenology modules into LPJ-GUESS represents a significant step towards improving the simulation of vegetation phenology in DGVMs.
While the paper on improving vegetation phenology simulation in DGVMs presents promising results, there are a few major concerns that could be addressed:
As shown in Fig. 2, the phenology module in LPJ-GUESS was replaced by DROMPHOT and DM model, which is driven by Gimms NVDI data. The parameterization of DROMPHOT and DM models, which is described in the section 2.5, was done with the particle swarm algorithm. Then the authors need to check whether the model improvements were achieved due to the replacement of phenology module or optimization of parameters. In other words, if they used the particle swarm algorithm to calibrate the original phenology module, will the major findings be different from the current simulations?
The study mentions that the new phenology modules were parameterized using remote sensing-based observations and reanalysis data. However, it would be beneficial to know if these parameterizations can be generalized to different regions and ecosystems with varying characteristics. The authors can map some key parameters in their phenology modules to show the spatial variation of phenological parameters.
The study does not conduct a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of the new phenology modules. Investigating the sensitivity of the model to different input parameters and potential uncertainties can help understand the reliability and limitations of the proposed approach.
In section 2.6, the authors mentioned that the model was spun up by 500 years to avoid the differences in vegetation and soil states. I’m not sure if 500 years is long enough for a dynamic vegetation model. It would be better to check if their findings were affected by the initial states.
One potential issue of the model is that NDVI has some limitations for constraining parameters in phenology models. For example, many observational studies have detected lags between phenology of NDVI, LAI and GPP. Also, NDVI data have limited information for vegetation phenology in tropical areas. So, discussion on these issues are required in the updated version. Â Â Â Â
Line 93: what is DM model? Please define it.
Figure 4: It is hard to chek PFT in different panels with so many types in the legend.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-212-RC1
Shouzhi Chen et al.
Shouzhi Chen et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | 7 | 2 | 39 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
- HTML: 30
- PDF: 7
- XML: 2
- Total: 39
- Supplement: 1
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1