The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of FLUXNET in the Community Land Model development
Abstract
The Community Land Model version 3 (CLM3.0) simulates land‐atmosphere exchanges in response to climatic forcings. CLM3.0 has known biases in the surface energy partitioning as a result of deficiencies in its hydrological and biophysical parameterizations. Such models, however, need to be robust for multidecadal global climate simulations. FLUXNET now provides an extensive data source of carbon, water and energy exchanges for investigating land processes, and it encompasses a global range of ecosystem‐climate interactions. Data from 15 FLUXNET sites are used to identify and improve model deficiencies. Including a prognostic aquifer, a bare soil evaporation resistance formulation and numerous other changes in the model result in a significantly improved soil hydrology and energy partitioning. Terrestrial water storage increased by up to 300 mm in warm climates and decreased in cold climates. Nitrogen control of photosynthesis is revealed as another missing process in the model. These improvements increase the correlation coefficient of hourly and monthly latent heat fluxes from a range of 0.5–0.6 to the range of 0.7–0.9. RMSE of the simulated sensible heat fluxes decrease by 20–50%. Primary production is overestimated during the wet season in mediterranean and tropical ecosystems. This might be related to missing carbon‐nitrogen dynamics as well as to site‐specific parameters. The new model (CLM3.5) with an improved terrestrial water cycle should lead to more realistic land‐atmosphere exchanges in coupled simulations. FLUXNET is found to be a valuable tool to develop and validate land surface models prior to their application in computationally expensive global simulations.
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
BEVEN, K. J., & KIRKBY, M. J. (1979) · Hydrological Sciences Bulletin · doi:10.1080/02626667909491834 · Cited by 6,670
Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., et al. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3800.1 · Cited by 2,902
Cited by
The interdependence of mechanisms underlying climate-driven vegetation mortality
McDowell, N. G., Beerling, D. J., Breshears, D. D., Fisher, R. A., Raffa, K. F., & Stitt, M. (2011) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.003 · Cited by 1,020
Liu, S., Bond-Lamberty, B., Hicke, J. A., Vargas, R., Zhao, S., Chen, J., Edburg, S. L., Hu, Y., Liu, J., McGuire, A. D., et al. (2011) · Journal of Geophysical Research · doi:10.1029/2010jg001585 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Authors
- Stöckli, R., Lawrence, D. M., Niu, G. ‐., Oleson, K. W., Thornton, P. E., Yang, Z. ‐., Bonan, G. B., Denning, A. S., & Running, S. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- G1
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019751319
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 20.57
- 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: Use of FLUXNET in the Community Land Model development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2007jg000562
- The paper
- Stöckli, R., Lawrence, D. M., Niu, G. ‐., Oleson, K. W., Thornton, P. E., Yang, Z. ‐., Bonan, G. B., Denning, A. S., & Running, S. W. (2008). Use of FLUXNET in the Community Land Model development. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jg000562
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.