Article
 

A model-data comparison of gross primary productivity: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis

Public Deposited

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/2z10wq572

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract
  • Accurately simulating gross primary productivity (GPP) in terrestrial ecosystem models is critical because errors in simulated GPP propagate through the model to introduce additional errors in simulated biomass and other fluxes. We evaluated simulated, daily average GPP from 26 models against estimated GPP at 39 eddy covariance flux tower sites across the United States and Canada. None of the models in this study match estimated GPP within observed uncertainty. On average, models overestimate GPP in winter, spring, and fall, and underestimate GPP in summer. Models overpredicted GPP under dry conditions and for temperatures below 0°C. Improvements in simulated soil moisture and ecosystem response to drought or humidity stress will improve simulated GPP under dry conditions. Adding a low-temperature response to shut down GPP for temperatures below 0°C will reduce the positive bias in winter, spring, and fall and improve simulated phenology. The negative bias in summer and poor overall performance resulted from mismatches between simulated and observed light use efficiency (LUE). Improving simulated GPP requires better leaf-to-canopy scaling and better values of model parameters that control the maximum potential GPP, such as ε[subscript max] (LUE), V[subscript cmax] (unstressed Rubisco catalytic capacity) or J[subscript max] (the maximum electron transport rate).
Resource Type
DOI
Date Available
Date Issued
Citation
  • Schaefer, K., et al. (2012), A model-data comparison of gross primary productivity: Results from the North American Carbon Program site synthesis, Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, G03010, doi:10.1029/2012JG001960.
Journal Title
Journal Volume
  • 117
Journal Issue/Number
  • G03010
Academic Affiliation
Rights Statement
Funding Statement (additional comments about funding)
  • This research was partly funded by NOAA Award NA07OAR4310115 and U.S. National Science Foundation grant ATM-0910766; funding was also provided by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science for AmeriFlux Science Team research to develop measurement and data submission protocols and conduct quality assurance of measurements for AmeriFlux investigators (Grant DE-FG02-04ER63911).
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details LawBeverlyForestryModelDataComparison.pdf 2017-07-06 Public Download