The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled climate–carbon models
Open accessAbstract
With representation of the global carbon cycle becoming increasingly complex in climate models, it is important to develop ways to quantitatively evaluate model performance against in situ and remote sensing observations. Here we present a systematic framework, the Carbon‐LAnd Model Intercomparison Project (C‐LAMP), for assessing terrestrial biogeochemistry models coupled to climate models using observations that span a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. As an example of the value of such comparisons, we used this framework to evaluate two biogeochemistry models that are integrated within the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) – Carnegie‐Ames‐Stanford Approach′ (CASA′) and carbon–nitrogen (CN). Both models underestimated the magnitude of net carbon uptake during the growing season in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems, based on comparison with atmospheric CO 2 measurements and eddy covariance measurements of net ecosystem exchange. Comparison with MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) measurements show that this low bias in model fluxes was caused, at least in part, by 1–3 month delays in the timing of maximum leaf area. In the tropics, the models overestimated carbon storage in woody biomass based on comparison with datasets from the Amazon. Reducing this model bias will probably weaken the sensitivity of terrestrial carbon fluxes to both atmospheric CO 2 and climate. Global carbon sinks during the 1990s differed by a factor of two (2.4 Pg C yr−1 for CASA′ vs. 1.2 Pg C yr−1 for CN), with fluxes from both models compatible with the atmospheric budget given uncertainties in other terms. The models captured some of the timing of interannual global terrestrial carbon exchange during 1988–2004 based on comparison with atmospheric inversion results from TRANSCOM (r=0.66 for CASA′ and r=0.73 for CN). Adding (CASA′) or improving (CN) the representation of deforestation fires may further increase agreement with the atmospheric record. Information from C‐LAMP has enhanced model performance within CCSM and serves as a benchmark for future development. We propose that an open source, community‐wide platform for model‐data intercomparison is needed to speed model development and to strengthen ties between modeling and measurement communities. Important next steps include the design and analysis of land use change simulations (in both uncoupled and coupled modes), and the entrainment of additional ecological and earth system observations. Model results from C‐LAMP are publicly available on the Earth System Grid.
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
Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change
Davidson, E. A., & Janssens, I. A. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04514 · Cited by 6,919
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
Self-citationThe amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997
Page, S. E., Siegert, F., Rieley, J. O., Boehm, H.-D. V., Jaya, A., & Limin, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01131 · Cited by 1,885
Interannual variability in global biomass burning emissions from 1997 to 2004
van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., Kasibhatla, P. S., & Arellano, A. F. (2006) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-6-3423-2006 · Cited by 1,656 · cited 1×
“Fire emissions were assessed by comparing CN with the Global Fire Emissions Database version 2 (GFEDv2) (van der Werf et al., 2006).”
Self-citationCombined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation
Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Wickett, M., Phillips, T. J., Lobell, D. B., Delire, C., & Mirin, A. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0608998104 · Cited by 957
Thonicke, K., Venevsky, S., Sitch, S., & Cramer, W. (2001) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2001.00175.x · Cited by 684
Global estimation of burned area using MODIS active fire observations
Giglio, L., van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Collatz, G. J., & Kasibhatla, P. (2006) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-6-957-2006 · Cited by 635
Self-citationHURTT, G. C., FROLKING, S., FEARON, M. G., MOORE, B., SHEVLIAKOVA, E., MALYSHEV, S., PACALA, S. W., & HOUGHTON, R. A. (2006) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01150.x · Cited by 531
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
The status and challenge of global fire modelling
Hantson, S., Arneth, A., Harrison, S. P., Kelley, D. I., Prentice, I. C., Rabin, S. S., Archibald, S., Mouillot, F., Arnold, S. R., Artaxo, P., et al. (2016) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-13-3359-2016 · Cited by 460
Fisher, R. A., Muszala, S., Verteinstein, M., Lawrence, P., Xu, C., McDowell, N. G., Knox, R. G., Koven, C., Holm, J., Rogers, B. M., et al. (2015) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-8-3593-2015 · Cited by 337
Self-citationGlobal vegetation and terrestrial carbon cycle changes after the last ice age
Prentice, I. C., Harrison, S. P., & Bartlein, P. J. (2011) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03620.x · Cited by 304
Integrating microbial ecology into ecosystem models: challenges and priorities
Treseder, K. K., Balser, T. C., Bradford, M. A., Brodie, E. L., Dubinsky, E. A., Eviner, V. T., Hofmockel, K. S., Lennon, J. T., Levine, U. Y., MacGregor, B. J., et al. (2012) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-011-9636-5 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- RANDERSON, J. T., HOFFMAN, F. M., THORNTON, P. E., MAHOWALD, N. M., LINDSAY, K., LEE, Y., NEVISON, C. D., DONEY, S. C., BONAN, G., STÖCKLI, R., COVEY, C., RUNNING, S. W., & FUNG, I. Y.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2462-2484
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W1985275493
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 25.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled climate–carbon models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01912.x
- The paper
- RANDERSON, J. T., HOFFMAN, F. M., THORNTON, P. E., MAHOWALD, N. M., LINDSAY, K., LEE, Y., NEVISON, C. D., DONEY, S. C., BONAN, G., STÖCKLI, R., COVEY, C., RUNNING, S. W., & FUNG, I. Y. (2009). Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled climate–carbon models. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01912.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.