Evaluating Global Land Surface Models in CMIP5: Analysis of Ecosystem Water- and Light-Use Efficiencies and Rainfall Partitioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water and carbon fluxes simulated by 12 Earth system models (ESMs) that participated in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) over several recent decades were evaluated using three functional constraints that are derived from both model simulations, or four global datasets, and 736 site-year measurements. Three functional constraints are ecosystem water-use efficiency (WUE), light-use efficiency (LUE), and the partitioning of precipitation P into evapotranspiration (ET) and runoff based on the Budyko framework. Although values of these three constraints varied significantly with time scale and should be quite conservative if being averaged over multiple decades, the results showed that both WUE and LUE simulated by the ensemble mean of 12 ESMs were generally lower than the site measurements. Simulations by the ESMs were generally consistent with the broad pattern of energy-controlled ET under wet conditions and soil water-controlled ET under dry conditions, as described by the Budyko framework. However, the value of the parameter in the Budyko framework ω, obtained from fitting the Budyko curve to the ensemble model simulation (1.74), was larger than the best-fit value of ω to the observed data (1.28). Globally, the ensemble mean of multiple models, although performing better than any individual model simulations, still underestimated the observed WUE and LUE, and overestimated the ratio of ET to P, as a result of overestimation in ET and underestimation in gross primary production (GPP). The results suggest that future model development should focus on improving the algorithms of the partitioning of precipitation into ecosystem ET and runoff, and the coupling of water and carbon cycles for different land-use types.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".