The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the validation of models of forest CO2 exchange using eddy covariance data: some perils and pitfalls
Abstract
With the widespread application of eddy covariance technology, long-term records of hourly ecosystem mass and energy exchange are becoming available for forests around the world. These data sets hold great promise for testing and validation of models of forest function. However, model validation is not a straightforward task. The goals of this paper were to: (1) review some of the problems inherent in model validation; and (2) survey the tools available to modelers to improve validation procedures, with particular reference to eddy covariance data. A simple set of models applied to a data set of ecosystem CO2 exchange is used to illustrate our points. The major problems discussed are equifinality, insensitivity and uncertainty. Equifinality is the problem that different models, or different parameterizations of the same model, may yield similar results, making it difficult to distinguish which is correct. Insensitivity arises because the major sources of variation in eddy covariance data are the annual and diurnal cycles, which are represented by even the most basic models, and the size of the response to these cycles can mask effects of other driving variables. Uncertainty arises from three main sources: parameters, model structure and data, each of which is discussed in turn. Uncertainty is a particular issue with eddy covariance data because of the lack of replicated measurements and the potential for unquantified systematic errors such as flux loss due to advection. We surveyed several tools that improve model validation, including sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, residual analysis and model comparison. Illustrative examples are used to demonstrate the use of each tool. We show that simplistic comparisons of model outputs with eddy covariance data are problematic, but use of these tools can greatly improve our confidence in model predictions.
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
Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference
Chatfield, C. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983440 · Cited by 1,103
The predictive validation of ecological and environmental models
Power, M. (1993) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/0304-3800(93)90106-3 · Cited by 301
Cited by
Baldocchi, D. (2008) · Australian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1071/bt07151 · Cited by 1,123
Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy
Gupta, H. V., Clark, M. P., Vrugt, J. A., Abramowitz, G., & Ye, M. (2012) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2011wr011044 · Cited by 466
ET come home: potential evapotranspiration in geographical ecology
Fisher, J. B., Whittaker, R. J., & Malhi, Y. (2011) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00578.x · Cited by 384
De Kauwe, M. G., Medlyn, B. E., Zaehle, S., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C., Wang, Y., Luo, Y., Jain, A. K., El‐Masri, B., Hickler, T., et al. (2014) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12847 · Cited by 323
Self-citationCapturing rapid land surface dynamics with Collection V006 MODIS BRDF/NBAR/Albedo (MCD43) products
Wang, Z., Schaaf, C. B., Sun, Q., Shuai, Y., & Román, M. O. (2018) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.001 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Medlyn, B. E., Robinson, A. P., Clement, R., & McMurtrie, R. E.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-07-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 839-857
- ISSN
- 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-4469
- OpenAlex
- W2100321473
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.09
- 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: On the validation of models of forest CO2 exchange using eddy covariance data: some perils and pitfalls. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/25.7.839
- The paper
- Medlyn, B. E., Robinson, A. P., Clement, R., & McMurtrie, R. E. (2005). On the validation of models of forest CO2 exchange using eddy covariance data: some perils and pitfalls. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.7.839
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.