Journal cover Journal topic
Biogeosciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-142
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-142
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Submitted as: research article 25 Apr 2016

Submitted as: research article | 25 Apr 2016

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Biogeosciences (BG). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.

Evaluation of modeled global carbon dynamics: analysis based on global carbon flux and above-ground biomass data

Bao-Lin Xue1, Qinghua Guo1,2, Tianyu Hu1, Yongcai Wang1, Shengli Tao1, Yanjun Sun2, Jin Liu1, and Xiaoqian Zhao1 Bao-Lin Xue et al.
  • 1State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing 100093, China
  • 2School of Engineering, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, Univ ersity of California at Merced, CA 95343, USA

Abstract. Dynamic global vegetation models are useful tools for the simulation of carbon dynamics on regional and global scales. However, even the most validated models are usually hampered by the poor availability of global biomass data in the model validation, especially on regional/global scales. Here, taking the integrated biosphere simulator model (IBIS) as an example, we evaluated the modeled carbon dynamics, including gross primary production (GPP) and potential above-ground biomass (AGB), on the global scale. The IBIS model was constrained by both in situ GPP and plot-level AGB data collected from the literature. Independent validation showed that IBIS could reproduce GPP and evapotranspiration with acceptable accuracy at site and global levels. On the global scale, the IBIS-simulated total AGB was similar to those obtained in other studies. However, discrepancies were observed between the model-derived and observed spatial patterns of AGB for Amazonian forests. The differences among the AGB spatial patterns were mainly caused by the single-parameter set of the model used. This study showed that different meteorological inputs can also introduce substantial differences in AGB on the global scale. Further analysis showed that this difference is small compared with parameter-induced differences. The conclusions of our research highlight the necessity of considering the heterogeneity of key model physiological parameters in modeling global AGB. The research also shows that to simulate large-scale carbon dynamics, both carbon flux and AGB data are necessary to constrain the model. The main conclusions of our research will help to improve model simulations of global carbon cycles.

Bao-Lin Xue et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Bao-Lin Xue et al.
Bao-Lin Xue et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 569 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
408 133 28 569 232 2 27
  • HTML: 408
  • PDF: 133
  • XML: 28
  • Total: 569
  • Supplement: 232
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 27
Views and downloads (calculated since 25 Apr 2016)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 25 Apr 2016)
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 21 Sep 2019
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Validation of dynamic global vegetation models are usually hampered by the poor availability of global biomass data over global scales. We evaluated model simulated gross primary production (GPP) and potential above-ground biomass (AGB) by literature-collected values. Independent validation showed that model could reproduce spatial patterns of GPP and evapotranspiration; but not for AGB. Results also showed that different meteorological inputs can also introduce substantial difference in AGB.
Validation of dynamic global vegetation models are usually hampered by the poor availability of...
Citation