4.8 Article

Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models

Journal

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 528-534

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2621

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a centre - National Science Foundation [EF-0553768]
  2. University of California, Santa Barbara
  3. state of California
  4. ARC [DP1094791]
  5. European Community [PERG02-GA-2007-224775, 238366]
  6. LOEWE initiative for scientific and economic excellence of the German federal state of Hesse
  7. NSF [NSF AGS 12-43071]
  8. US Department of Energy [DOE DE-SC0006706]
  9. NASA LCLUC programme [NASA NNX14AD94G]
  10. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  11. Directorate For Geosciences [1243071] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. Australian Research Council [DP1094791] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ecosystem responses to rising CO2 concentrations are a major source of uncertainty in climate change projections. Data from ecosystem-scale Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments provide a unique opportunity to reduce this uncertainty. The recent FACE Model-Data Synthesis project aimed to use the information gathered in two forest FACE experiments to assess and improve land ecosystem models. A new 'assumption-centred' model intercomparison approach was used, in which participating models were evaluated against experimental data based on the ways in which they represent key ecological processes. By identifying and evaluating the main assumptions causing differences among models, the assumption-centred approach produced a clear roadmap for reducing model uncertainty. Here, we explain this approach and summarize the resulting research agenda. We encourage the application of this approach in other model intercomparison projects to fundamentally improve predictive understanding of the Earth system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available