Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using model‐data fusion to interpret past trends, and quantify uncertainties in future projections, of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling

Open access
Keenan, Trevor F., Davidson, Eric, Moffat, Antje M., Munger, William, Richardson, Andrew D.·2012·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Uncertainties in model projections of carbon cycling in terrestrial ecosystems stem from inaccurate parameterization of incorporated processes (endogenous uncertainties) and processes or drivers that are not accounted for by the model (exogenous uncertainties). Here, we assess endogenous and exogenous uncertainties using a model‐data fusion framework benchmarked with an artificial neural network (ANN). We used 18 years of eddy‐covariance carbon flux data from the H arvard forest, where ecosystem carbon uptake has doubled over the measurement period, along with 15 ancillary ecological data sets relative to the carbon cycle. We test the ability of combinations of diverse data to constrain projections of a process‐based carbon cycle model, both against the measured decadal trend and under future long‐term climate change. The use of high‐frequency eddy‐covariance data alone is shown to be insufficient to constrain model projections at the annual or longer time step. Future projections of carbon cycling under climate change in particular are shown to be highly dependent on the data used to constrain the model. Endogenous uncertainties in long‐term model projections of future carbon stocks and fluxes were greatly reduced by the use of aggregated flux budgets in conjunction with ancillary data sets. The data‐informed model, however, poorly reproduced interannual variability in net ecosystem carbon exchange and biomass increments and did not reproduce the long‐term trend. Furthermore, we use the model‐data fusion framework, and the ANN, to show that the long‐term doubling of the rate of carbon uptake at H arvard forest cannot be explained by meteorological drivers, and is driven by changes during the growing season. By integrating all available data with the model‐data fusion framework, we show that the observed trend can only be reproduced with temporal changes in model parameters. Together, the results show that exogenous uncertainty dominates uncertainty in future projections from a data‐informed process‐based model.

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.1365-2486.2012.02684.x

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Keenan, T. F., Davidson, E., Moffat, A. M., Munger, W., & Richardson, A. D.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04-18
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
2555-2569
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2118563481
Cited by
195
References
6
FWCI
12.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Using model‐data fusion to interpret past trends, and quantify uncertainties in future projections, of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02684.x
The paper
Keenan, T. F., Davidson, E., Moffat, A. M., Munger, W., & Richardson, A. D. (2012). Using model‐data fusion to interpret past trends, and quantify uncertainties in future projections, of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02684.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.