" Idol with feet of clay ": reliable predictions of forest ecosystem functioning require flawless climate forcings.
Jourdan, M.; Francois, C.; Delpierre, N.; Martin St-Paul, N.; Dufrene, E.
Show abstract
Climate change affects various aspects of the functioning of ecosystem, especially photosynthesis, respiration and carbon storage. We need accurate modelling approaches (impact models) to simulate the functioning, vitality and provision of ecosystem services of forests in a warmer world. These impact models require climate data as forcings, which are often produced by climate models comparing more or less well with observational climate data. The bias percentage of the climate forcings propagates throughout the modeling chain from the climate model to the impact model. In this study, we aimed to quantify these bias percentage, addressing three questions: (1) Do the impact model predictions vary when forcing it with different climate models, and how do the predictions under climate model vs. observational climate forcing differ? (2) Does the variability in the impact climate simulations caused by climate forcings fade out at large spatial scale? (3) How the fact of using simulated climatic data affects the process-based model predictions in the case of stressful events? To answer these questions, we present results obtained over the historical period (e.g. 1970-2010) with the CASTANEA ecophysiological forest model and use the data from three climate models. Our analysis focuses on French forests, studying European beech (Fagus sylvatica), temperate deciduous oaks (Quercus robur and Q. petraea), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and spruce (Picea abies) monospecific stands. We show that prediction of photosynthesis, respiration and wood growth highly depends on the climate model used, whether debiased or not, and also on species and region considered. Overall, we observed an improvement of prediction after a monthly mean bias or monthly quantile mapping correction for three model considered, but not with the same success. Then we highlighted a large variability in the processes simulated by the impact model under different climate forcings when considering the plot (i.e. scale of a few hectares) scale. This variability fades out at larger scale (e.g. the scale of an ecological region, i.e. 100 km2), owing to an aggregation effect. Moreover, process predictions obtained under different climate forcings are more variable during driest years. These results highlight the necessity to quantify bias and uncertainties in climate forcings before predicting fluxes dynamics with process-based model.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- High-resolution mapping of forest vulnerability to wind for disturbance-aware forestry and climate change adaptation 96%
- Forest structural diversity determines tree growth synchrony in response to climate change 95%
- Modeling post-logging height growth of black spruce forests by combining airborne LiDAR and historical forestry maps in eastern Canadian boreal forest 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- An individual, mechanistic and dynamical model to simulate urban tree growth and ecosystem services supply under future scenarios 96%
- Contribution of deep soil layers to the transpiration of a temperate deciduous forest: quantification and implications for the modelling of productivity 95%
- The phenological response of European vegetation to urbanisation is mediated by macrobioclimatic factors 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large-scale informative priors to better predict the local occurrence rate of a rare tree-related microhabitat 93%
- Soil variation response is mediated by growth trajectories rather than functional traits in a widespread pioneer Neotropical tree 92%
- Hierarchizing multi-scale environmental effects on agricultural pest population dynamics: a case study on the annual onset of Bactrocera dorsalis population growth in Senegalese orchards 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.