Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 730

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure

Kucharik, Christopher J., Foley, Jonathan A., Delire, Christine, Fisher, Veronica A., Coe, Michael T., Lenters, John D., Young‐Molling, Christine, Ramankutty, Navin, Norman, John M., Gower, Stith T.·2000·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

While a new class of Dynamic Global Ecosystem Models (DGEMs) has emerged in the past few years as an important tool for describing global biogeochemical cycles and atmosphere‐biosphere interactions, these models are still largely untested. Here we analyze the behavior of a new DGEM and compare the results to global‐scale observations of water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. In this study, we use version 2 of the Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS), which includes several major improvements and additions to the prototype model developed by Foley et al. [1996]. IBIS is designed to be a comprehensive model of the terrestrial biosphere; the model represents a wide range of processes, including land surface physics, canopy physiology, plant phenology, vegetation dynamics and competition, and carbon and nutrient cycling. The model generates global simulations of the surface water balance (e.g., runoff), the terrestrial carbon balance (e.g., net primary production, net ecosystem exchange, soil carbon, aboveground and belowground litter, and soil CO 2 fluxes), and vegetation structure (e.g., biomass, leaf area index, and vegetation composition). In order to test the performance of the model, we have assembled a wide range of continental and global‐scale data, including measurements of river discharge, net primary production, vegetation structure, root biomass, soil carbon, litter carbon, and soil CO 2 flux. Using these field data and model results for the contemporary biosphere (1965–1994), our evaluation shows that simulated patterns of runoff, NPP, biomass, leaf area index, soil carbon, and total soil CO 2 flux agree reasonably well with measurements that have been compiled from numerous ecosystems. These results also compare favorably to other global model results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/1999gb001138

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 730

Metadata

Authors
Kucharik, C. J., Foley, J. A., Delire, C., Fisher, V. A., Coe, M. T., Lenters, J. D., Young‐Molling, C., Ramankutty, N., Norman, J. M., & Gower, S. T.
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2000-09
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
795-825
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W2018330599
Cited by
730
References
4
FWCI
21.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/1999gb001138
The paper
Kucharik, C. J., Foley, J. A., Delire, C., Fisher, V. A., Coe, M. T., Lenters, J. D., Young‐Molling, C., Ramankutty, N., Norman, J. M., & Gower, S. T. (2000). Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001138

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.