Assessing model performance via the most limiting environmental driver in two differently stressed pine stands.
Aleppo pine
Scots pine
gross primary productivity
model evaluation
most limiting environmental driver
productivity seasonality
random forest
Journal
Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America
ISSN: 1051-0761
Titre abrégé: Ecol Appl
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9889808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
revised:
06
11
2020
received:
15
07
2020
accepted:
06
12
2020
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
25
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Climate change will impact forest productivity worldwide. Forecasting the magnitude of such impact, with multiple environmental stressors changing simultaneously, is only possible with the help of process-based models. In order to assess their performance, such models require careful evaluation against measurements. However, direct comparison of model outputs against observational data is often not reliable, as models may provide the right answers due to the wrong reasons. This would severely hinder forecasting abilities under unprecedented climate conditions. Here, we present a methodology for model assessment, which supplements the traditional output-to-observation model validation. It evaluates model performance through its ability to reproduce observed seasonal changes of the most limiting environmental driver (MLED) for a given process, here daily gross primary productivity (GPP). We analyzed seasonal changes of the MLED for GPP in two contrasting pine forests, the Mediterranean Pinus halepensis Mill. Yatir (Israel) and the boreal Pinus sylvestris L. Hyytiälä (Finland) from three years of eddy-covariance flux data. Then, we simulated the same period with a state-of-the-art process-based simulation model (LandscapeDNDC). Finally, we assessed if the model was able to reproduce both GPP observations and MLED seasonality. We found that the model reproduced the seasonality of GPP in both stands, but it was slightly overestimated without site-specific fine-tuning. Interestingly, although LandscapeDNDC properly captured the main MLED in Hyytiälä (temperature) and in Yatir (soil water availability), it failed to reproduce high-temperature and high-vapor pressure limitations of GPP in Yatir during spring and summer. We deduced that the most likely reason for this divergence is an incomplete description of stomatal behavior. In summary, this study validates the MLED approach as a model evaluation tool, and opens up new possibilities for model improvement.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e02312Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : CSCHM 2736/2-2
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : RU 1657/2-1
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Ecological Applications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Ecological Society of America.
Références
Aubinet, M., et al. 1999. Estimates of the annual net carbon and water exchange of forests: the EUROFLUX methodology. Advances in Ecological Research 30:113-175.
Birami, B., T. Nägele, M. Gattmann, Y. Preisler, A. Gast, A. Arneth, and N. K. Ruehr. 2020. Hot drought reduces the effects of elevated CO2 on tree water-use efficiency and carbon metabolism. New Phytologist 226:1607-1621.
Blackman, C. J., et al. 2019. Drought response strategies and hydraulic traits contribute to mechanistic understanding of plant dry-down to hydraulic failure. Tree Physiology 39:910-924.
Blonder, B., and S. T. Michaletz. 2018. A model for leaf temperature decoupling from air temperature. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 262:354-360.
Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45:5-32.
Brodribb, T. J., J. Powers, H. Cochard, and B. Choat. 2020. Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought. Science 368:261-266.
Bugmann, H., et al. 2019. Tree mortality submodels drive simulated long-term forest dynamics: assessing 15 models from the stand to global scale. Ecosphere 10:e02616.
Churkina, G., and S. W. Running. 1998. Contrasting climatic controls on the estimated productivity of global terrestrial biomes. Ecosystems 1:206-215.
Ciais, P., et al. 2005. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529-533.
Collalti, A., et al. 2018. Thinning can reduce losses in carbon use efficiency and carbon stocks in managed forests under warmer climate. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 10:2427-2452.
Collalti, A., et al. 2019. The sensitivity of the forest carbon budget shifts across processes along with stand development and climate change. Ecological Applications 29:e01837.
D’Orangeville, L., L. Duchesne, D. Houle, D. Kneeshaw, B. Côté, and N. Pederson. 2016. Northeastern North America as a potential refugium for boreal forests in a warming climate. Science 352:1452-1455.
D’Orangeville, L., D. Houle, L. Duchesne, R. P. Phillips, Y. Bergeron, and D. Kneeshaw. 2018. Beneficial effects of climate warming on boreal tree growth may be transitory. Nature Communications 9:1-10.
De Kauwe, M. G., et al. 2020. Identifying areas at risk of drought-induced tree mortality across South-Eastern Australia. Global Change Biology 26:5716-5733.
De'ath, G., and K. E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178-3192.
Dietze, M. C., et al. 2018. Iterative near-term ecological forecasting: Needs, opportunities, and challenges. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115:1424-1432.
Dirnböck, T., et al. 2020. Substantial understory contribution to the C sink of a European temperate mountain forest landscape. Landscape Ecology 35:483-499.
Dormann, C. F. 2020. Calibration of probability predictions from machine-learning and statistical models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 29:760-765.
Drake, J. E., et al. 2017. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations of photosynthesis for four tree species under drought: a comparison of model formulations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 247:454-466.
Duursma, R. A., C. J. Blackman, R. Lopéz, N. K. Martin-StPaul, H. Cochard, and B. E. Medlyn. 2019. On the minimum leaf conductance: its role in models of plant water use, and ecological and environmental controls. New Phytologist 221:693-705.
Eller, C. B., et al. 2018. Modelling tropical forest responses to drought and El Niño with a stomatal optimization model based on xylem hydraulics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373:20170315.
Eller, C. B., et al. 2020. Stomatal optimization based on xylem hydraulics (SOX) improves land surface model simulation of vegetation responses to climate. New Phytologist 226:1622-1637.
Farquhar, G. D., S. V. von Caemmerer, and J. A. Berry. 1980. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C 3 species. Planta 149:78-90.
Ficklin, D. L., and K. A. Novick. 2017. Historic and projected changes in vapor pressure deficit suggest a continental-scale drying of the United States atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 122:2061-2079.
Fluxnet 2015. 2017. FLUXNET2015 Release. Processing Pipeline document. http://fluxnet.fluxdata.org/data/fluxnet2015-dataset/data-processing/
Granier, A., D. Loustau, and N. Bréda. 2000. A generic model of forest canopy conductance dependent on climate, soil water availability and leaf area index. Annals of Forest Science 57:755-765.
Grossiord, C., et al. 2020. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytologist 226:1550-1566.
Grote, R. 2007. Sensitivity of volatile monoterpene emission to changes in canopy structure: a model-based exercise with a process-based emission model. New Phytologist 173:550-561.
Grote, R., R. Kiese, T. Grünwald, J. M. Ourcival, and A. Granier. 2011a. Modelling forest carbon balances considering tree mortality and removal. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151:179-190.
Grote, R., J. Korhonen, and I. Mammarella. 2011b. Challenges for evaluating process-based models of gas exchange at forest sites with fetches of various species. Forest Systems 20:389-406.
Grote, R., A. V. Lavoir, S. Rambal, M. Staudt, I. Zimmer, and J. P. Schnitzler. 2009. Modelling the drought impact on monoterpene fluxes from an evergreen Mediterranean forest canopy. Oecologia 160:213-223.
Grünzweig, J. M., I. Gelfand, Y. Fried, and D. Yakir. 2007. Biogeochemical factors contributing to enhanced carbon storage following afforestation of a semi-arid shrubland. Biogeosciences 4:891-904.
Grünzweig, J. M., T. Lin, E. Rotenberg, A. Schwartz, and D. Yakir. 2003. Carbon sequestration in arid-land forest. Global Change Biology 9:791-799.
Gutsch, M., P. Lasch-Born, F. Suckow, and C. P. Reyer. 2016. Evaluating the productivity of four main tree species in Germany under climate change with static reduced models. Annals of Forest Science 73:401-410.
Haas, E., et al. 2013. LandscapeDNDC: a process model for simulation of biosphere-atmosphere-hydrosphere exchange processes at site and regional scale. Landscape Ecology 28:615-636.
Haataja, J., and T. Vesala. 1997. Station for Measuring Forest Ecosystem-Atmosphere Relations: SMEAR II. Vol. 17. University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology Publications, Helsinki, Finland.
Harris, I. P. D. J., P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and D. H. Lister. 2014. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations-the CRU TS3. 10 Dataset. International Journal of Climatology 34:623-642.
Hartig, F., J. Dyke, T. Hickler, S. I. Higgins, R. B. O’Hara, S. Scheiter, and A. Huth. 2012. Connecting dynamic vegetation models to data-an inverse perspective. Journal of Biogeography 39(12):2240-2252.
Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer, New York City, New York, USA.
Hellmann, L., et al. 2016. Diverse growth trends and climate responses across Eurasia’s boreal forest. Environmental Research Letters 11:074021.
Holst, J., et al. 2010. Water fluxes within beech stands in complex terrain. International Journal of Biometeorology 54:23-36.
Humphrey, V., J. Zscheischler, P. Ciais, L. Gudmundsson, S. Sitch, and S. I. Seneviratne. 2018. Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage. Nature 560:628-631.
Hüve, K., I. Bichele, H. Kaldmäe, B. Rasulov, F. Valladares, and Ü. Niinemets. 2019. Responses of aspen leaves to heatflecks: Both damaging and non-damaging rapid temperature excursions reduce photosynthesis. Plants 8:145.
Kauppi, P. E., M. Posch, and P. Pirinen. 2014. Large impacts of climatic warming on growth of boreal forests since 1960. PLoS ONE 9:e111340.
Keenan, T., S. Sabate, and C. Gracia. 2010. Soil water stress and coupled photosynthesis-conductance models: Bridging the gap between conflicting reports on the relative roles of stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150:443-453.
Kirchner, J. W. 2006. Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resources Research 42:W03S04.
Klein, T., et al. 2014. Quantifying transpirable soil water and its relations to tree water use dynamics in a water-limited pine forest. Ecohydrology 7:409-419.
Klein, T., S. Cohen, and D. Yakir. 2011. Hydraulic adjustments underlying drought resistance of Pinus halepensis. Tree Physiology 31:637-648.
Knauer, J., C. Werner, and S. Zaehle. 2015. Evaluating stomatal models and their atmospheric drought response in a land surface scheme: a multibiome analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 120:1894-1911.
Kolari, P., et al. 2009. CO2 exchange and component CO2 fluxes of a boreal Scots pine forest. Boreal Environment Research 14:761-783.
Leuning, R. 1995. A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C3 plants. Plant, Cell & Environment 18:339-355.
Li, C., S. Frolking, and T. A. Frolking. 1992. A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events: 1. Model structure and sensitivity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 97:9759-9776.
Liaw, A., and M. Wiener. 2002. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2:18-22.
Liu, Y., M. Kumar, G. G. Katul, X. Feng, and A. G. Konings. 2020. Plant hydraulics accentuates the effect of atmospheric moisture stress on transpiration. Nature Climate Change 10:691-695.
Lloyd, J., and G. D. Farquhar. 2008. Effects of rising temperatures and [CO2] on the physiology of tropical forest trees. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:1811-1817.
Ma, J., H. H. Shugart, X. Yan, C. Cao, S. Wu, and J. Fang. 2017. Evaluating carbon fluxes of global forest ecosystems by using an individual tree-based model FORCCHN. Science of the Total Environment 586:939-951.
Mäkelä, A., P. Hari, F. Berninger, H. Hänninen, and E. Nikinmaa. 2004. Acclimation of photosynthetic capacity in Scots pine to the annual cycle of temperature. Tree Physiology 24:369-376.
Markkanen, T., Ü. Rannik, P. Keronen, T. Suni, and T. Vesala. 2001. Eddy covariance fluxes over a boreal Scots pine forest. Boreal Environment Research 6:65-78.
Maseyk, K. S., T. Lin, E. Rotenberg, J. M. Grünzweig, A. Schwartz, and D. Yakir. 2008. Physiology-phenology interactions in a productive semi-arid pine forest. New Phytologist 178:603-616.
Medlyn, B. E., R. A. Duursma, and M. J. Zeppel. 2011a. Forest productivity under climate change: a checklist for evaluating model studies. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2:332-355.
Medlyn, B. E., et al. 2011b. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Global Change Biology 17:2134-2144.
Medlyn, B. E., et al. 2015. Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nature Climate Change 5:528-534.
Morales, P., et al. 2005. Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. Global Change Biology 11:2211-2233.
Mullen, K., D. Ardia, D. L. Gil, D. Windover, and J. Cline. 2011. DEoptim: An R package for global optimization by differential evolution. Journal of Statistical Software 40:1-26.
Nadal-Sala, D. 2020. DanielNadalSala/Nadal-Sala_et_al_2020_EcologicalApplications: Nadal-Sala et al. (2020) Ecological Applications (Version v1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4309121
Nemani, R. R., et al. 2003. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560-1563.
Norby, R. J., et al. 2005. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:18052-18056.
Novick, K. A., et al. 2016. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change 6:1023-1027.
Park, T., et al. 2019. Changes in timing of seasonal peak photosynthetic activity in northern ecosystems. Global Change Biology 25:2382-2395.
Peltoniemi, M., M. Pulkkinen, M. Aurela, J. Pumpanen, P. Kolari, and A. Mäkelä. 2015. A semi-empirical model of boreal-forest gross primary production, evapotranspiration, and soil water-calibration and sensitivity analysis. Boreal Environment Research 20:151-171.
Preisler, Y., et al. 2019. Mortality versus survival in drought-affected Aleppo pine forest depends on the extent of rock cover and soil stoniness. Functional Ecology 33:901-912.
Qubaja, R., et al. 2020. Partitioning evapotranspiration and its long-term evolution in a dry pine forest using measurement-based estimates of soil evaporation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 281:107831.
Qubaja, R., J. M. Grünzweig, E. Rotenberg, and D. Yakir. 2019. Evidence for large carbon sink and long residence time in semiarid forests based on 15-year flux and inventory records. Global Change Biology 26:1626-1637.
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rannik, Ü., P. Keronen, P. Hari, and T. Vesala. 2004. Estimation of forest-atmosphere CO2 exchange by eddy covariance and profile techniques. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 126:141-155.
Raz-Yaseef, N., D. Yakir, E. Rotenberg, G. Schiller, and S. Cohen. 2010. Ecohydrology of a semi-arid forest: partitioning among water balance components and its implications for predicted precipitation changes. Ecohydrology 3:143-154.
Reichstein, M., et al. 2005. On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm. Global Change Biology 11:1424-1439.
Reyer, C. P., et al. 2020. The PROFOUND database for evaluating vegetation models and simulating climate impacts on forests. Earth System Science Data 12:1295-1320.
Rollinson, C. R., et al. 2017. Emergent climate and CO2 sensitivities of net primary productivity in ecosystem models do not agree with empirical data in temperate forests of eastern North America. Global Change Biology 23:2755-2767.
Rotenberg, E., and D. Yakir. 2010. Contribution of semi-arid forests to the climate system. Science 327:451-454.
Ruimy, A., L. Kergoat, A. Bondeau, and T. P. O. T. P. N. M. Intercomparison. 1999. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): Analysis of differences in light absorption and light-use efficiency. Global Change Biology 5:56-64.
Schlesinger, W. H., et al. 2016. Forest biogeochemistry in response to drought. Global Change Biology 22:2318-2328.
Schweier, J., et al. 2017. Environmental impacts of bioenergy wood production from poplar short-rotation coppice grown at a marginal agricultural site in Germany. GCB Bioenergy 9:1207-1221.
Scoffoni, C., et al. 2017. Outside-xylem vulnerability, not xylem embolism, controls leaf hydraulic decline during dehydration. Plant Physiology 173:1197-1210.
Seneviratne, S. I., et al. 2010. Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth-Science Reviews 99:125-161.
Simioni, G., G. Marie, and R. Huc. 2016. Influence of vegetation spatial structure on growth and water fluxes of a mixed forest: results from the NOTG 3D model. Ecological Modelling 328:119-135.
Smith, M. N., et al. 2020. Empirical evidence for resilience of tropical forest photosynthesis in a warmer world. Nature Plants 6:1225-1230.
Sperlich, D., C. T. Chang, J. Peñuelas, and S. Sabaté. 2019. Responses of photosynthesis and component processes to drought and temperature stress: are Mediterranean trees fit for climate change? Tree Physiology 39:1783-1805.
Sperry, J. S., and D. M. Love. 2015. What plant hydraulics can tell us about responses to climate-change droughts. New Phytologist 207:14-27.
Tagesson, T., et al. 2020. Recent divergence in the contributions of tropical and boreal forests to the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4:202-209.
Tan, Z. H., et al. 2017. Optimum air temperature for tropical forest photosynthesis: Mechanisms involved and implications for climate warming. Environmental Research Letters 12:054022.
Tatarinov, F., E. Rotenberg, K. Maseyk, J. Ogée, T. Klein, and D. Yakir. 2016. Resilience to seasonal heat wave episodes in a Mediterranean pine forest. New Phytologist 210:485-496.
Thornley, J. H. M., and M. G. R. Cannell. 2000. Modelling the components of plant respiration: representation and realism. Annals of Botany 85:55-67.
Ungar, E., E. Rotemberg, N. Raz-Yaseef, S. Cohen, D. Yakir, and G. Schiller. 2013. Transpiration and annual water balance of Aleppo pine in a semiarid region: Implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 298:39-51.
Xu, B., M. A. Arain, T. A. Black, B. E. Law, G. Z. Pastorello, and H. Chu. 2020. Seasonal variability of forest sensitivity to heat and drought stresses: A synthesis based on carbon fluxes from North American forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology 26:901-918.
Zandalinas, S. I., R. Mittler, D. Balfagón, V. Arbona, and A. Gómez-Cadenas. 2018. Plant adaptations to the combination of drought and high temperatures. Physiologia Plantarum 162:2-12.
Zhang, H., P. Wu, A. Yin, X. Yang, M. Zhang, and C. Gao. 2017. Prediction of soil organic carbon in an intensively managed reclamation zone of eastern China: A comparison of multiple linear regressions and the random forest model. Science of the Total Environment 592:704-713.
Zhang, Q., et al. 2019. Response of ecosystem intrinsic water use efficiency and gross primary productivity to rising vapor pressure deficit. Environmental Research Letters 14:074023.
Zhang, Y., et al. 2016. Development of a coupled carbon and water model for estimating global gross primary productivity and evapotranspiration based on eddy flux and remote sensing data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 223:116-131.