The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Landscapes as patches of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem models
Abstract
While most land models developed for use with climate models represent vegetation as discrete biomes, this is, at least for mixed life‐form biomes, inconsistent with the leaf‐level and whole‐plant physiological parameterizations needed to couple these biogeophysical models with biogeochemical and ecosystem dynamics models. In this paper, we present simulations with the National Center for Atmospheric Research land surface model (NCAR LSM) that examined the effect of representing vegetation as patches of plant functional types (PFTs) that coexist within a model grid cell. This approach is consistent with ecological theory and models and allows for unified treatment of vegetation in climate and ecosystem models. In the standard NCAR LSM the PFT composition and leaf area for each grid cell are obtained by classifying grid cells as 1 of 28 possible biomes. Here, we develop a data set from 1‐km satellite data that provides each model grid cell a unique PFT composition and leaf area for each PFT. Global simulations at 3° × 3° spatial resolution showed that ground temperature, ground evaporation, and northern high‐latitude winter albedo exhibited direct responses to these landscape changes, which led to indirect effects such as in soil moisture and sensible and latent heat fluxes. Additional simulations at 2° × 2° and 1° × 1° spatial resolution showed that low‐resolution simulations masked landscape heterogeneity in both approaches but the satellite‐based, continuous representation of vegetation reduced model sensitivity to resolution. It is argued that the use of spatially continuous distributions of coexisting PFTs is a necessary step to link climate and ecosystem models.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species
Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S., & Berry, J. A. (1980) · Planta · doi:10.1007/bf00386231 · Cited by 8,796
Cited by
The worldwide leaf economics spectrum
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D. D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., Cavender-Bares, J., Chapin, T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Diemer, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02403 · Cited by 9,021
Dagon, K., & Schrag, D. P. (2016) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-15-0472.1 · Cited by 48
Modeling the impact of agricultural land use and management on US carbon budgets
Drewniak, B. A., Mishra, U., Song, J., Prell, J., & Kotamarthi, V. R. (2015) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-12-2119-2015 · Cited by 43
Qiu, H. (2023) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-375-ac5
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Kergoat, L., & Oleson, K. W.
- Venue
- Global Biogeochemical Cycles
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2002-05-22
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-9224
- OpenAlex
- W1657306314
- Cited by
- 655
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.29
- 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: Landscapes as patches of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2000gb001360
- The paper
- Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Kergoat, L., & Oleson, K. W. (2002). Landscapes as patches of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000gb001360
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.