Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing and evaluating process‐based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes

Morales, Pablo, Sykes, Martin T., Prentice, I. Colin, Smith, Pete, Smith, Benjamin, Bugmann, Harald, Zierl, Bärbel, Friedlingstein, Pierre, Viovy, Nicolas, Sabaté, Santi, Sánchez, Anabel, Pla, Eduard, Gracia, Carlos A., Sitch, Stephen, Arneth, Almut, Ogee, Jerome·2005·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Process‐based models can be classified into: (a) terrestrial biogeochemical models (TBMs), which simulate fluxes of carbon, water and nitrogen coupled within terrestrial ecosystems, and (b) dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which further couple these processes interactively with changes in slow ecosystem processes depending on resource competition, establishment, growth and mortality of different vegetation types. In this study, four models – RHESSys, GOTILWA+, LPJ‐GUESS and ORCHIDEE – representing both modelling approaches were compared and evaluated against benchmarks provided by eddy‐covariance measurements of carbon and water fluxes at 15 forest sites within the EUROFLUX project. Overall, model‐measurement agreement varied greatly among sites. Both modelling approaches have somewhat different strengths, but there was no model among those tested that universally performed well on the two variables evaluated. Small biases and errors suggest that ORCHIDEE and GOTILWA+ performed better in simulating carbon fluxes while LPJ‐GUESS and RHESSys did a better job in simulating water fluxes. In general, the models can be considered as useful tools for studies of climate change impacts on carbon and water cycling in forests. However, the various sources of variation among models simulations and between models simulations and observed data described in this study place some constraints on the results and to some extent reduce their reliability. For example, at most sites in the Mediterranean region all models generally performed poorly most likely because of problems in the representation of water stress effects on both carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon release by heterotrophic respiration (Rh). The use of flux data as a means of assessing key processes in models of this type is an important approach to improving model performance. Our results show that the models have value but that further model development is necessary with regard to the representation of the some of the key ecosystem processes.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x

Cites

65 of 65 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 65 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Morales, P., Sykes, M. T., Prentice, I. C., Smith, P., Smith, B., Bugmann, H., Zierl, B., Friedlingstein, P., Viovy, N., Sabaté, S., Sánchez, A., Pla, E., Gracia, C. A., Sitch, S., Arneth, A., & Ogee, J.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-11-28
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
2211-2233
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2063559297
Cited by
287
References
65
FWCI
13.79
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: Comparing and evaluating process‐based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x
The paper
Morales, P., Sykes, M. T., Prentice, I. C., Smith, P., Smith, B., Bugmann, H., Zierl, B., Friedlingstein, P., Viovy, N., Sabaté, S., Sánchez, A., Pla, E., Gracia, C. A., Sitch, S., Arneth, A., & Ogee, J. (2005). Comparing and evaluating process‐based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.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.