0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessModels represent our primary method for integration of small‐scale, process‐level phenomena into a comprehensive description of forest‐stand or ecosystem function. They also represent a key method for testing hypotheses about the response of forest ecosystems to multiple changing environmental conditions. This paper describes the evaluation of 13 stand‐level models varying in their spatial, mechanistic, and temporal complexity for their ability to capture intra‐ and interannual components of the water and carbon cycle for an upland, oak‐dominated forest of eastern Tennessee. Comparisons between model simulations and observations were conducted for hourly, daily, and annual time steps. Data for the comparisons were obtained from a wide range of methods including: eddy covariance, sapflow, chamber‐based soil respiration, biometric estimates of stand‐level net primary production and growth, and soil water content by time or frequency domain reflectometry. Response surfaces of carbon and water flux as a function of environmental drivers, and a variety of goodness‐of‐fit statistics (bias, absolute bias, and model efficiency) were used to judge model performance. A single model did not consistently perform the best at all time steps or for all variables considered. Intermodel comparisons showed good agreement for water cycle fluxes, but considerable disagreement among models for predicted carbon fluxes. The mean of all model outputs, however, was nearly always the best fit to the observations. Not surprisingly, models missing key forest components or processes, such as roots or modeled soil water content, were unable to provide accurate predictions of ecosystem responses to short‐term drought phenomenon. Nevertheless, an inability to correctly capture short‐term physiological processes under drought was not necessarily an indicator of poor annual water and carbon budget simulations. This is possible because droughts in the subject ecosystem were of short duration and therefore had a small cumulative impact. Models using hourly time steps and detailed mechanistic processes, and having a realistic spatial representation of the forest ecosystem provided the best predictions of observed data. Predictive ability of all models deteriorated under drought conditions, suggesting that further work is needed to evaluate and improve ecosystem model performance under unusual conditions, such as drought, that are a common focus of environmental change discussions.
Paul J. Hanson, Jeffrey S. Amthor, Stan D. Wullschleger, Kristi Wilson, R. F. Grant, A. Hartley, Dafeng Hui, Emily R. Hunt, Dale W. Johnson, John S. Kimball, A. W. King, Yiqi Luo, Steven G. McNulty, Ge Sun, Peter Thornton, Shusen Wang, Mathew Williams, Dennis Baldocchi, R.M. Cushman (2004). OAK FOREST CARBON AND WATER SIMULATIONS: MODEL INTERCOMPARISONS AND EVALUATIONS AGAINST INDEPENDENT DATA. , 74(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/03-4049.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2004
Authors
19
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1890/03-4049
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access