|
|
Sándor, R., Ma, S., Acutis, M., Barcza, Z., Ben, T., H., Doro, L., et al. (2014). Uncertainty in simulating biomass yield and carbon-water fluxes from Euro-Mediterranean grasslands under climate changes..
|
|
|
|
Sándor, R., Barcza, Z., Acutis, M., Doro, L., Hidy, D., Köchy, M., et al. (2016). Multi-model simulation of soil temperature, soil water content and biomass in Euro-Mediterranean grasslands: Uncertainties and ensemble performance. European Journal of Agronomy, .
Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.
|
|
|
|
Sándor, R. (2015). Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of grassland models in Europe and Israel (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Grassland models are valuable tools to test hypotheses on grassland ecosystem functioning. In the frame of FACCE MACSUR LiveM, a model intercomparison was conducted using a dataset from an observational and experimental network of nine multi-year grassland sites spread across Europe (France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and United Kingdom) and Israel, and a suite of nine models to understand grassland functioning in the region. Grassland-specific approaches were compared to approaches mainly conceived to simulate crops and plant functional types. Model evaluation against actual measurements was performed before and after model calibration. The calibrated models were used to analyze their sensitivity to independent variations of temperature, precipitation and [CO2]. The results show to which extent calibration can accommodate model discrepancies. The sensitivity of simulated gross primary production to [CO2] and temperature is an important outcome, considering the fundamental effect of rising temperature and [CO2] on the C cycling of terrestrial ecosystems in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Overall, alternative models exhibit a different sensitivity to climate change factors, with different performances over different conditions. Explained by the basic processes of each model and also induced by different calibration methods, this difference is indicative that more models can be complementary and deliver greater insights than if they were applied individually. No Label
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., & Sándor, R. (2015). Model intercomparison (Vol. 6).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on some illustrative results obtained with different grassland- specific, grassland adapted crop and dynamic vegetation models selected out of the first list of models compiled in D-L2.1.1 to simulate biomass and flux data from grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions (D-L2.1.1 and D-L2.1.2). Results from uncalibrated simulations were documented in the D-L2.3 report as a blind exercise. Some model improvements are emphasized in this report due to the higher information level of the model calibrations. The complete set of results will include simulations from uncalibrated and calibrated models. No Label
|
|
|
|
Sándor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Basso, B., Bellocchi, G., Bhatia, A., Brilli, L., et al. (2016). C and N models Intercomparison – benchmark and ensemble model estimates for grassland production. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 245–247.
|
|
