|
|
Klosterhalfen, A., Herbst, M., Weihermueller, L., Graf, A., Schmidt, M., Stadler, A., et al. (2017). Multi-site calibration and validation of a net ecosystem carbon exchange model for croplands. Ecol. Model., 363, 137–156.
Abstract: Croplands play an important role in the carbon budget of many regions. However, the estimation of their carbon balance remains difficult due to diversity and complexity of the processes involved. We report the coupling of a one-dimensional soil water, heat, and CO2 flux model (SOILCO2), a pool concept of soil carbon turnover (RothC), and a crop growth module (SUCROS) to predict the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon. The coupled model, further referred to as AgroC, was extended with routines for managed grassland as well as for root exudation and root decay. In a first step, the coupled model was applied to two winter wheat sites and one upland grassland site in Germany. The model was calibrated based on soil water content, soil temperature, biometric, and soil respiration measurements for each site, and validated in terms of hourly NEE measured with the eddy covariance technique. The overall model performance of AgroC was sufficient with a model efficiency above 0.78 and a correlation coefficient above 0.91 for NEE. In a second step, AgroC was optimized with eddy covariance NEE measurements to examine the effect of different objective functions, constraints, and data-transformations on estimated NEE. It was found that NEE showed a distinct sensitivity to the choice of objective function and the inclusion of soil respiration data in the optimization process. In particular, both positive and negative day- and nighttime fluxes were found to be sensitive to the selected optimization strategy. Additional consideration of soil respiration measurements improved the simulation of small positive fluxes remarkably. Even though the model performance of the selected optimization strategies did not diverge substantially, the resulting cumulative NEE over simulation time period differed substantially. Therefore, it is concluded that data transformations, definitions of objective functions, and data sources have to be considered cautiously when a terrestrial ecosystem model is used to determine NEE by means of eddy covariance measurements. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Hjelkrem, A. - G. R., Höglind, M., van Oijen, M., Schellberg, J., Gaiser, T., & Ewert, F. (2017). Sensitivity analysis and Bayesian calibration for testing robustness of the BASGRA model in different environments. Ecol. Model., 359, 80–91.
Abstract: Highlights • The parameters to be fixed were consistent across sites. • Model calibration must be performed separately for each specific case. • Possible to reduce model parameters from 66 to 45. • Strong model reductions must be avoided. • The error term for the training data were characterised by timing (phase shift). Abstract Proper parameterisation and quantification of model uncertainty are two essential tasks in improvement and assessment of model performance. Bayesian calibration is a method that combines both tasks by quantifying probability distributions for model parameters and outputs. However, the method is rarely applied to complex models because of its high computational demand when used with high-dimensional parameter spaces. We therefore combined Bayesian calibration with sensitivity analysis, using the screening method by Morris (1991), in order to reduce model complexity by fixing parameters to which model output was only weakly sensitive to a nominal value. Further, the robustness of the model with respect to reduction in the number of free parameters were examined according to model discrepancy and output uncertainty. The process-based grassland model BASGRA was examined in the present study on two sites in Norway and in Germany, for two grass species (Phleum pratense and Arrhenatherum elatius). According to this study, a reduction of free model parameters from 66 to 45 was possible. The sensitivity analysis showed that the parameters to be fixed were consistent across sites (which differed in climate and soil conditions), while model calibration had to be performed separately for each combination of site and species. The output uncertainty decreased slightly, but still covered the field observations of aboveground biomass. Considering the training data, the mean square error for both the 66 and the 45 parameter model was dominated by errors in timing (phase shift), whereas no general pattern was found in errors when using the validation data. Stronger model reduction should be avoided, as the error term increased and output uncertainty was underestimated.
|
|
