Predicting ecosystem dynamics at regional scales: an evaluation of a terrestrial biosphere model for the forests of northeastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrestrial biosphere models are important tools for diagnosing both the current state of the terrestrial carbon cycle and forecasting terrestrial ecosystem responses to global change. While there are a number of ongoing assessments of the short-term predictive capabilities of terrestrial biosphere models using flux-tower measurements, to date there have been relatively few assessments of their ability to predict longer term, decadal-scale biomass dynamics. Here, we present the results of a regional-scale evaluation of the Ecosystem Demography version 2 (ED2)-structured terrestrial biosphere model, evaluating the model's predictions against forest inventory measurements for the northeast USA and Quebec from 1985 to 1995. Simulations were conducted using a default parametrization, which used parameter values from the literature, and a constrained model parametrization, which had been developed by constraining the model's predictions against 2 years of measurements from a single site, Harvard Forest (42.5° N, 72.1° W). The analysis shows that the constrained model parametrization offered marked improvements over the default model formulation, capturing large-scale variation in patterns of biomass dynamics despite marked differences in climate forcing, land-use history and species-composition across the region. These results imply that data-constrained parametrizations of structured biosphere models such as ED2 can be successfully used for regional-scale ecosystem prediction and forecasting. We also assess the model's ability to capture sub-grid scale heterogeneity in the dynamics of biomass growth and mortality of different sizes and types of trees, and then discuss the implications of these analyses for further reducing the remaining biases in the model's predictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".