Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,119

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space

Smith, Benjamin, Prentice, I. Colin, Sykes, Martin T.·2001·Global Ecology & Biogeography

Abstract

Abstract Advances in dynamic ecosystem modelling have made a number of different approaches to vegetation dynamics possible. Here we compare two models representing contrasting degrees of abstraction of the processes governing dynamics in real vegetation. Model (a) (GUESS) simulates explicitly growth and competition among individual plants. Differences in crown structure (height, depth, area and LAI) influence relative light uptake by neighbours. Assimilated carbon is allocated individually by each plant to its leaf, fine root and sapwood tissues. Carbon allocation and turnover of sapwood to heartwood in turn govern height and diameter growth. Model (b) (LPJ) incorporates a ‘dynamic global vegetation model’ (DGVM) architecture, simulating growth of populations of plant functional types (PFTs) over a grid cell, integrating individual‐level processes over the proportional area (foliar projective cover, FPC) occupied by each PFT. Individual plants are not simulated, but are replaced by explicit parameterizations of their growth and interactions. The models are identical in their representation of core physiological and biogeochemical processes. Both also use the same set of PFTs, corresponding to the major woody plant groups in Europe, plus a grass type. When applied at a range of locations, broadly spanning climatic variation within Europe, both models successfully predicted PFT composition and succession within modern natural vegetation. However, the individual‐based model performed better in areas where deciduous and evergreen types coincide, and in areas subject to pronounced seasonal water deficits, which would tend to favour grasses over drought‐intolerant trees. Differences in model performance could be traced to their treatment of individual‐level processes, in particular light competition and stress‐induced mortality. Our results suggest that an explicit individual‐based approach to vegetation dynamics may be an advantage in modelling of ecosystem structure and function at the resolution required for regional‐ to continental‐scale studies.

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 · 10.1046/j.1466-822x.2001.00256.x

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

See all 1,119

Metadata

Authors
Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., & Sykes, M. T.
Venue
Global Ecology & Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
621-637
ISSN
1466-822X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058364716
Cited by
1,119
References
33
FWCI
5.57
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: Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1466-822x.2001.00256.x
The paper
Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., & Sykes, M. T. (2001). Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. Global Ecology & Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822x.2001.00256.x

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.