skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests

Abstract

How carbon (C) is allocated to different plant tissues (leaves, stem, and roots) determines how long C remains in plant biomass and thus remains a central challenge for understanding the global C cycle. We used a diverse set of observations (AmeriFlux eddy covariance tower observations, biomass estimates from tree-ring data, and leaf area index (LAI) measurements) to compare C fluxes, pools, and LAI data with those predicted by a land surface model (LSM), the Community Land Model (CLM4.5). We ran CLM4.5 for nine temperate (including evergreen and deciduous) forests in North America between 1980 and 2013 using four different C allocation schemes: i. dynamic C allocation scheme (named "D-CLM4.5") with one dynamic allometric parameter, which allocates C to the stem and leaves to vary in time as a function of annual net primary production (NPP); ii. an alternative dynamic C allocation scheme (named "D-Litton"), where, similar to (i), C allocation is a dynamic function of annual NPP, but unlike (i) includes two dynamic allometric parameters involving allocation to leaves, stem, and coarse roots; iii.–iv. a fixed C allocation scheme with two variants, one representative of observations in evergreen (named "F-Evergreen") and the other of observations in deciduous forests (named "F-Deciduous"). D-CLM4.5 generally overestimatedmore » gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration, and underestimated net ecosystem exchange (NEE). In D-CLM4.5, initial aboveground biomass in 1980 was largely overestimated (between 10 527 and 12 897 g C m -2) for deciduous forests, whereas aboveground biomass accumulation through time (between 1980 and 2011) was highly underestimated (between 1222 and 7557 g C m -2) for both evergreen and deciduous sites due to a lower stem turnover rate in the sites than the one used in the model. D-CLM4.5 overestimated LAI in both evergreen and deciduous sites because the leaf C–LAI relationship in the model did not match the observed leaf C–LAI relationship at our sites. Although the four C allocation schemes gave similar results for aggregated C fluxes, they translated to important differences in long-term aboveground biomass accumulation and aboveground NPP. For deciduous forests, D-Litton gave more realistic C stem/C leaf ratios and strongly reduced the overestimation of initial aboveground biomass and aboveground NPP for deciduous forests by D-CLM4.5. We identified key structural and parameterization deficits that need refinement to improve the accuracy of LSMs in the near future. These include changing how C is allocated in fixed and dynamic schemes based on data from current forest syntheses and different parameterization of allocation schemes for different forest types. Our results highlight the utility of using measurements of aboveground biomass to evaluate and constrain the C allocation scheme in LSMs, and suggest that stem turnover is overestimated by CLM4.5 for these AmeriFlux sites. Understanding the controls of turnover will be critical to improving long-term C processes in LSMs.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1]; ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [1];  [2];  [3];  [1];  [4];  [2];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8];  [9];  [10];  [10];  [11];  [1]
  1. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (United States)
  2. West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV (United States)
  3. Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY (United States). Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
  4. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (United States); Swiss Federal Research Inst., Birmensdorf (Switzerland); Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), Krakow (Poland)
  5. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA (United States)
  6. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States)
  7. The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH (United States)
  8. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., Richmond, VA (United States)
  9. Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (United States)
  10. Indiana Univ., Bloomington, IN (United States)
  11. Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (United States); Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Basic Energy Sciences (BES) (SC-22)
OSTI Identifier:
1426775
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1479331
Grant/Contract Number:  
SC0016011; AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Geoscientific Model Development (Online)
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Name: Geoscientific Model Development (Online); Journal Volume: 10; Journal Issue: 9; Journal ID: ISSN 1991-9603
Publisher:
European Geosciences Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Montané, Francesc, Fox, Andrew M., Arellano, Avelino F., MacBean, Natasha, Alexander, M. Ross, Dye, Alex, Bishop, Daniel A., Trouet, Valerie, Babst, Flurin, Hessl, Amy E., Pederson, Neil, Blanken, Peter D., Bohrer, Gil, Gough, Christopher M., Litvak, Marcy E., Novick, Kimberly A., Phillips, Richard P., Wood, Jeffrey D., and Moore, David J. P. Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017.
Montané, Francesc, Fox, Andrew M., Arellano, Avelino F., MacBean, Natasha, Alexander, M. Ross, Dye, Alex, Bishop, Daniel A., Trouet, Valerie, Babst, Flurin, Hessl, Amy E., Pederson, Neil, Blanken, Peter D., Bohrer, Gil, Gough, Christopher M., Litvak, Marcy E., Novick, Kimberly A., Phillips, Richard P., Wood, Jeffrey D., & Moore, David J. P. Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests. United States. doi:10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017.
Montané, Francesc, Fox, Andrew M., Arellano, Avelino F., MacBean, Natasha, Alexander, M. Ross, Dye, Alex, Bishop, Daniel A., Trouet, Valerie, Babst, Flurin, Hessl, Amy E., Pederson, Neil, Blanken, Peter D., Bohrer, Gil, Gough, Christopher M., Litvak, Marcy E., Novick, Kimberly A., Phillips, Richard P., Wood, Jeffrey D., and Moore, David J. P. Fri . "Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests". United States. doi:10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1426775.
@article{osti_1426775,
title = {Evaluating the effect of alternative carbon allocation schemes in a land surface model (CLM4.5) on carbon fluxes, pools, and turnover in temperate forests},
author = {Montané, Francesc and Fox, Andrew M. and Arellano, Avelino F. and MacBean, Natasha and Alexander, M. Ross and Dye, Alex and Bishop, Daniel A. and Trouet, Valerie and Babst, Flurin and Hessl, Amy E. and Pederson, Neil and Blanken, Peter D. and Bohrer, Gil and Gough, Christopher M. and Litvak, Marcy E. and Novick, Kimberly A. and Phillips, Richard P. and Wood, Jeffrey D. and Moore, David J. P.},
abstractNote = {How carbon (C) is allocated to different plant tissues (leaves, stem, and roots) determines how long C remains in plant biomass and thus remains a central challenge for understanding the global C cycle. We used a diverse set of observations (AmeriFlux eddy covariance tower observations, biomass estimates from tree-ring data, and leaf area index (LAI) measurements) to compare C fluxes, pools, and LAI data with those predicted by a land surface model (LSM), the Community Land Model (CLM4.5). We ran CLM4.5 for nine temperate (including evergreen and deciduous) forests in North America between 1980 and 2013 using four different C allocation schemes: i. dynamic C allocation scheme (named "D-CLM4.5") with one dynamic allometric parameter, which allocates C to the stem and leaves to vary in time as a function of annual net primary production (NPP); ii. an alternative dynamic C allocation scheme (named "D-Litton"), where, similar to (i), C allocation is a dynamic function of annual NPP, but unlike (i) includes two dynamic allometric parameters involving allocation to leaves, stem, and coarse roots; iii.–iv. a fixed C allocation scheme with two variants, one representative of observations in evergreen (named "F-Evergreen") and the other of observations in deciduous forests (named "F-Deciduous"). D-CLM4.5 generally overestimated gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration, and underestimated net ecosystem exchange (NEE). In D-CLM4.5, initial aboveground biomass in 1980 was largely overestimated (between 10 527 and 12 897 g C m-2) for deciduous forests, whereas aboveground biomass accumulation through time (between 1980 and 2011) was highly underestimated (between 1222 and 7557 g C m-2) for both evergreen and deciduous sites due to a lower stem turnover rate in the sites than the one used in the model. D-CLM4.5 overestimated LAI in both evergreen and deciduous sites because the leaf C–LAI relationship in the model did not match the observed leaf C–LAI relationship at our sites. Although the four C allocation schemes gave similar results for aggregated C fluxes, they translated to important differences in long-term aboveground biomass accumulation and aboveground NPP. For deciduous forests, D-Litton gave more realistic Cstem/Cleaf ratios and strongly reduced the overestimation of initial aboveground biomass and aboveground NPP for deciduous forests by D-CLM4.5. We identified key structural and parameterization deficits that need refinement to improve the accuracy of LSMs in the near future. These include changing how C is allocated in fixed and dynamic schemes based on data from current forest syntheses and different parameterization of allocation schemes for different forest types. Our results highlight the utility of using measurements of aboveground biomass to evaluate and constrain the C allocation scheme in LSMs, and suggest that stem turnover is overestimated by CLM4.5 for these AmeriFlux sites. Understanding the controls of turnover will be critical to improving long-term C processes in LSMs.},
doi = {10.5194/gmd-10-3499-2017},
journal = {Geoscientific Model Development (Online)},
number = 9,
volume = 10,
place = {United States},
year = {2017},
month = {9}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 8 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Improving canopy processes in the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) using global flux fields empirically inferred from FLUXNET data
journal, January 2011

  • Bonan, Gordon B.; Lawrence, Peter J.; Oleson, Keith W.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 116, Issue G2
  • DOI: 10.1029/2010JG001593

The role of initial conditions and forcing uncertainties in seasonal hydrologic forecasting
journal, January 2009

  • Li, Haibin; Luo, Lifeng; Wood, Eric F.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 114, Issue D4
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008JD010969

Spatiotemporal patterns of evapotranspiration in response to multiple environmental factors simulated by the Community Land Model
journal, April 2013


Comparing tree-ring and permanent plot estimates of aboveground net primary production in three eastern U.S. forests
journal, September 2016

  • Dye, Alex; Barker Plotkin, Audrey; Bishop, Daniel
  • Ecosphere, Vol. 7, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.1454

Comparing observations and process-based simulations of biosphere-atmosphere exchanges on multiple timescales: MODEL EVALUATION ON MULTIPLE TIMESCALES
journal, April 2010

  • Mahecha, M. D.; Reichstein, M.; Jung, M.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, Vol. 115, Issue G2
  • DOI: 10.1029/2009JG001016

Comparison of modeling approaches for carbon partitioning: Impact on estimates of global net primary production and equilibrium biomass of woody vegetation from MODIS GPP
journal, January 2010

  • Ise, Takeshi; Litton, Creighton M.; Giardina, Christian P.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, Issue G4
  • DOI: 10.1029/2010JG001326

Global simulations of carbon allocation coefficients for deciduous vegetation types
journal, October 2015

  • Xia, Jiangzhou; Chen, Yang; Liang, Shunlin
  • Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, Vol. 67, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v67.28016

The role of residence time in diagnostic models of global carbon storage capacity: model decomposition based on a traceable scheme
journal, November 2015

  • Yizhao, Chen; Jianyang, Xia; Zhengguo, Sun
  • Scientific Reports, Vol. 5, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/srep16155

Land surface model spin‐up behavior in the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS)
journal, November 2003

  • Cosgrove, Brian A.; Lohmann, Dag; Mitchell, Kenneth E.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 108, Issue D22
  • DOI: 10.1029/2002JD003316

Observed allocations of productivity and biomass, and turnover times in tropical forests are not accurately represented in CMIP5 Earth system models
journal, June 2015

  • Negrón-Juárez, Robinson I.; Koven, Charles D.; Riley, William J.
  • Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/6/064017

Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies: Global leaf area index
journal, April 2003


New Phytologist: bridging the ‘plant function - climate modelling divide’
journal, February 2016


Above-ground woody carbon sequestration measured from tree rings is coherent with net ecosystem productivity at five eddy-covariance sites
journal, November 2013

  • Babst, Flurin; Bouriaud, Olivier; Papale, Dario
  • New Phytologist, Vol. 201, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1111/nph.12589

FLUXNET: A New Tool to Study the Temporal and Spatial Variability of Ecosystem–Scale Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, and Energy Flux Densities
journal, November 2001


Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Variability
journal, January 2016


AmeriFlux US-NR1 Niwot Ridge Forest (LTER NWT1)
dataset, January 1998


The decadal state of the terrestrial carbon cycle: Global retrievals of terrestrial carbon allocation, pools, and residence times
journal, January 2016

  • Bloom, A. Anthony; Exbrayat, Jean-François; van der Velde, Ivar R.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1515160113

The AmeriFlux data activity and data system: an evolving collection of data management techniques, tools, products and services
journal, January 2013

  • Boden, T. A.; Krassovski, M.; Yang, B.
  • Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems, Vol. 2, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.5194/gi-2-165-2013

Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges
journal, March 2002


Spatial Patterns of Aboveground Production and Mortality of Woody Biomass for Eastern u.s. Forests
journal, August 1999


Modeling the carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: Mycorrhizal trade-offs and multipath resistance uptake improve predictions of retranslocation: Carbon cost of mycorrhizae
journal, August 2014

  • Brzostek, Edward R.; Fisher, Joshua B.; Phillips, Richard P.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, Vol. 119, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014JG002660

Contributions of Land-Use History to Carbon Accumulation in U.S. Forests
journal, November 2000


Allocation of gross primary production in forest ecosystems: allometric constraints and environmental responses
journal, July 2013

  • Chen, Guangshui; Yang, Yusheng; Robinson, David
  • New Phytologist, Vol. 200, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1111/nph.12426

Updated generalized biomass equations for North American tree species
journal, December 2013


Some Sampling Characteristics of a Population of Randomly Dispersed Individuals
journal, October 1953

  • Cottam, Grant; Curtis, J. T.; Hale, B. Wilde
  • Ecology, Vol. 34, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.2307/1931337

Biometric and eddy-covariance based estimates of annual carbon storage in five eastern North American deciduous forests
journal, December 2002


Biomass turnover time in terrestrial ecosystems halved by land use
journal, August 2016

  • Erb, Karl-Heinz; Fetzel, Tamara; Plutzar, Christoph
  • Nature Geoscience, Vol. 9, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2782

Taking off the training wheels: the properties of a dynamic vegetation model without climate envelopes, CLM4.5(ED)
journal, January 2015

  • Fisher, R. A.; Muszala, S.; Verteinstein, M.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 8, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-8-3593-2015

FLUXNET and modelling the global carbon cycle
journal, March 2007


Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO 2
journal, December 2013

  • Friend, Andrew D.; Lucht, Wolfgang; Rademacher, Tim T.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1222477110

Belowground carbon flux links biogeochemical cycles and resource-use efficiency at the global scale
journal, October 2016

  • Gill, Allison L.; Finzi, Adrien C.
  • Ecology Letters, Vol. 19, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1111/ele.12690

Whole-ecosystem labile carbon production in a north temperate deciduous forest
journal, September 2009

  • Gough, Christopher M.; Flower, Charles E.; Vogel, Christoph S.
  • Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 149, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.04.006

Sustained carbon uptake and storage following moderate disturbance in a Great Lakes forest
journal, July 2013

  • Gough, Christopher M.; Hardiman, Brady S.; Nave, Lucas E.
  • Ecological Applications, Vol. 23, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1890/12-1554.1

Net Primary Production and Carbon Allocation Patterns of Boreal Forest Ecosystems
journal, October 2001


Modelling CO2 Impacts on Forest Productivity
journal, April 2015


Aboveground Forest Biomass and the Global Carbon Balance
journal, June 2005


Evaluation and improvement of the Community Land Model (CLM4) in Oregon forests
journal, January 2013


A global Fine-Root Ecology Database to address below-ground challenges in plant ecology
journal, February 2017

  • Iversen, Colleen M.; McCormack, M. Luke; Powell, A. Shafer
  • New Phytologist, Vol. 215, Issue 1, p. 15-26
  • DOI: 10.1111/nph.14486

The Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble Project: A Community Resource for Studying Climate Change in the Presence of Internal Climate Variability
journal, August 2015

  • Kay, J. E.; Deser, C.; Phillips, A.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 96, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00255.1

Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world's most carbon-dense forests
journal, June 2009

  • Keith, Heather; Mackey, Brendan G.; Lindenmayer, David B.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, Issue 28
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901970106

Controls on terrestrial carbon feedbacks by productivity versus turnover in the CMIP5 Earth System Models
journal, January 2015


Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model
journal, January 2011

  • Lawrence, David M.; Oleson, Keith W.; Flanner, Mark G.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 3, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1029/2011MS000045

Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide
journal, November 2009

  • Le Quéré, Corinne; Raupach, Michael R.; Canadell, Josep G.
  • Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1038/ngeo689

Global Carbon Budget 2015
journal, January 2015

  • Le Quéré, C.; Moriarty, R.; Andrew, R. M.
  • Earth System Science Data, Vol. 7, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/essd-7-349-2015

Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems
journal, October 2007


CO 2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database
journal, December 2007


Forests, carbon and global climate
journal, June 2002

  • Malhi, Yadvinder; Meir, Patrick; Brown, Sandra
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 360, Issue 1797
  • DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2002.1020

The allocation of ecosystem net primary productivity in tropical forests
journal, November 2011

  • Malhi, Yadvinder; Doughty, Christopher; Galbraith, David
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 366, Issue 1582
  • DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0062

Remote Sensing Evaluation of CLM4 GPP for the Period 2000–09
journal, August 2012


Global Latitudinal-Asymmetric Vegetation Growth Trends and Their Driving Mechanisms: 1982–2009
journal, March 2013

  • Mao, Jiafu; Shi, Xiaoying; Thornton, Peter
  • Remote Sensing, Vol. 5, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.3390/rs5031484

North American forest disturbance mapped from a decadal Landsat record
journal, June 2008

  • Masek, Jeffrey G.; Huang, Chengquan; Wolfe, Robert
  • Remote Sensing of Environment, Vol. 112, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.02.010

Aboveground Production in Southeastern Floodplain Forests: a test of the Subsidy–Stress Hypothesis
journal, March 1997


Fine Root Production Estimates and Belowground Carbon Allocation in Forest Ecosystems
journal, August 1992

  • Nadelhoffer, Knute J.; Raich, James W.
  • Ecology, Vol. 73, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.2307/1940664

Above- and Belowground Net Primary Production in a Temperate Mixed Deciduous Forest
journal, April 2006


AmeriFlux US-MMS Morgan Monroe State Forest
dataset, January 1999


A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World's Forests
journal, July 2011


A belowground perspective on the drought sensitivity of forests: Towards improved understanding and simulation
journal, November 2016


The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems in East Asia over the last two decades
journal, January 2012


Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled climate-carbon models
journal, October 2009


On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm
journal, September 2005


Estimating parameters of a forest ecosystem C model with measurements of stocks and fluxes as joint constraints
journal, April 2010


Evaluation of 10 Methods for Initializing a Land Surface Model
journal, April 2005

  • Rodell, M.; Houser, P. R.; Berg, A. A.
  • Journal of Hydrometeorology, Vol. 6, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1175/JHM414.1

CLIMATE CHANGE: Managing Forests After Kyoto
journal, September 2000


Where does the carbon go?--Plant carbon allocation under climate change
journal, June 2015


Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: global carbon cycle impact from an improved plant nitrogen cycle in the Community Land Model
journal, January 2016

  • Shi, Mingjie; Fisher, Joshua B.; Brzostek, Edward R.
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 22, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13131

The muddle of ages, turnover, transit, and residence times in the carbon cycle
journal, November 2016

  • Sierra, Carlos A.; Müller, Markus; Metzler, Holger
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 23, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13556

Evaluation of the individual allocation scheme and its impacts in a dynamic global vegetation model
journal, January 2016


Ninety Years Change in a Northern Hardwood Forest in Wisconsin
journal, July 1949


An Improved Canopy Integration Scheme for a Land Surface Model with Prognostic Canopy Structure
journal, August 2007

  • Thornton, Peter E.; Zimmermann, Niklaus E.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 20, Issue 15
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4222.1

Evaluation of climate-related carbon turnover processes in global vegetation models for boreal and temperate forests
journal, April 2017

  • Thurner, Martin; Beer, Christian; Ciais, Philippe
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 23, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13660

Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States
journal, January 2009


Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production?
journal, February 1998


Root structural and functional dynamics in terrestrial biosphere models - evaluation and recommendations
journal, September 2014

  • Warren, Jeffrey M.; Hanson, Paul J.; Iversen, Colleen M.
  • New Phytologist, Vol. 205, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1111/nph.13034

Predicting vegetation type through physiological and environmental interactions with leaf traits: evergreen and deciduous forests in an earth system modeling framework
journal, November 2016

  • Weng, Ensheng; Farrior, Caroline E.; Dybzinski, Ray
  • Global Change Biology, Vol. 23, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13542

Allometric growth and allocation in forests: a perspective from FLUXNET
journal, July 2011

  • Wolf, Adam; Field, Christopher B.; Berry, Joseph A.
  • Ecological Applications, Vol. 21, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1890/10-1201.1

A semi-analytical solution to accelerate spin-up of a coupled carbon and nitrogen land model to steady state
journal, January 2012

  • Xia, J. Y.; Luo, Y. Q.; Wang, Y. -P.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 5, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-5-1259-2012

Preliminary study of spin-up processes in land surface models with the first stage data of Project for Intercomparison of Land Surface Parameterization Schemes Phase 1(a)
journal, January 1995

  • Yang, Z. -L.; Dickinson, R. E.; Henderson-Sellers, A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, Issue D8
  • DOI: 10.1029/95JD01076

    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Assessing the Impact of Parameter Uncertainty on Modeling Grass Biomass Using a Hybrid Carbon Allocation Strategy: A HYBRID CARBON ALLOCATION STRATEGY
    journal, December 2017

    • Reyes, J. J.; Tague, C. L.; Evans, R. D.
    • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 9, Issue 8
    • DOI: 10.1002/2017ms001022

    Assessing the Impact of Parameter Uncertainty on Modeling Grass Biomass Using a Hybrid Carbon Allocation Strategy: A HYBRID CARBON ALLOCATION STRATEGY
    journal, December 2017

    • Reyes, J. J.; Tague, C. L.; Evans, R. D.
    • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 9, Issue 8
    • DOI: 10.1002/2017ms001022