Abstract

Abstract. The terrestrial carbon cycle plays a critical role in modulating the interactions of climate with the Earth system, but different models often make vastly different predictions of its behavior. Efforts to reduce model uncertainty have commonly focused on model structure, namely by introducing additional processes and increasing structural complexity. However, the extent to which increased structural complexity can directly improve predictive skill is unclear. While adding processes may improve realism, the resulting models are often encumbered by a greater number of poorly determined or over-generalized parameters. To guide efficient model development, here we map the theoretical relationship between model complexity and predictive skill. To do so, we developed 16 structurally distinct carbon cycle models spanning an axis of complexity and incorporated them into a model–data fusion system. We calibrated each model at six globally distributed eddy covariance sites with long observation time series and under 42 data scenarios that resulted in different degrees of parameter uncertainty. For each combination of site, data scenario, and model, we then predicted net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and leaf area index (LAI) for validation against independent local site data. Though the maximum model complexity we evaluated is lower than most traditional terrestrial biosphere models, the complexity range we explored provides universal insight into the inter-relationship between structural uncertainty, parametric uncertainty, and model forecast skill. Specifically, increased complexity only improves forecast skill if parameters are adequately informed (e.g., when NEE observations are used for calibration). Otherwise, increased complexity can degrade skill and an intermediate-complexity model is optimal. This finding remains consistent regardless of whether NEE or LAI is predicted. Our COMPLexity EXperiment (COMPLEX) highlights the importance of robust observation-based parameterization for land surface modeling and suggests that data characterizing net carbon fluxes will be key to improving decadal predictions of high-dimensional terrestrial biosphere models.

Highlights

  • The role of the terrestrial biosphere in the global carbon cycle is challenging to model (Friedlingstein et al, 2013) due to the diverse processes, forcings, and feedbacks driving variability of gross fluxes (Heimann and Reichstein, 2008; Luo et al, 2015)

  • Canopy growth and mortality is determined by a phenology sub-model which is sensitive to day of year, environmental factors (GSI), or a combination of environmental factors and estimated net canopy carbon export (NCCE)

  • We chose the histogram intersection as a skill metric because it captures accuracy along with both prediction uncertainty and observational uncertainty. This approach contrasts with more familiar metrics such as the coefficient of determination (R2) or root-mean-square error (RMSE), which do not account for uncertainties surrounding individual data points or predictions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The role of the terrestrial biosphere in the global carbon cycle is challenging to model (Friedlingstein et al, 2013) due to the diverse processes, forcings, and feedbacks driving variability of gross fluxes (Heimann and Reichstein, 2008; Luo et al, 2015). Many attempts to reduce model uncertainty have focused on matching models to nature by representing an increasing number of processes known to influence different parts of the carbon cycle (e.g., vegetation demography, Fisher et al, 2018, or plant hydraulics, Kennedy et al, 2019). In this way, models of the terrestrial biosphere have become more complex over time (Fisher et al, 2014; Bonan, 2019; Fisher and Koven, 2020). Progress can benefit long-term predictions of global change, and near-term, regional-scale ecological forecasts aimed at informing sustainable decision-making (Dietze et al, 2018; Thomas et al, 2018; White et al, 2019) and modeling studies focused on understanding the recent past (Schwalm et al, 2020)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call