Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

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

Connecting dynamic vegetation models to data – an inverse perspective

Hartig, Florian, Dyke, James, Hickler, Thomas, Higgins, Steven I., O’Hara, Robert B., Scheiter, Simon, Huth, Andreas·2012·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Dynamic vegetation models provide process‐based explanations of the dynamics and the distribution of plant ecosystems. They offer significant advantages over static, correlative modelling approaches, particularly for ecosystems that are outside their equilibrium due to global change or climate change. A persistent problem, however, is their parameterization. Parameters and processes of dynamic vegetation models (DVMs) are traditionally determined independently of the model, while model outputs are compared to empirical data for validation and informal model comparison only. But field data for such independent estimates of parameters and processes are often difficult to obtain, and the desire to include better descriptions of processes such as biotic interactions, dispersal, phenotypic plasticity and evolution in future vegetation models aggravates limitations related to the current parameterization paradigm. In this paper, we discuss the use of Bayesian methods to bridge this gap. We explain how Bayesian methods allow direct estimates of parameters and processes, encoded in prior distributions, to be combined with inverse estimates, encoded in likelihood functions. The combination of direct and inverse estimation of parameters and processes allows a much wider range of vegetation data to be used simultaneously, including vegetation inventories, species traits, species distributions, remote sensing, eddy flux measurements and palaeorecords. The possible reduction of uncertainty regarding structure, parameters and predictions of DVMs may not only foster scientific progress, but will also increase the relevance of these models for policy advice.

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.1365-2699.2012.02745.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 197

Metadata

Authors
Hartig, F., Dyke, J., Hickler, T., Higgins, S. I., O’Hara, R. B., Scheiter, S., & Huth, A.
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-21
Volume
39
Issue
12
Pages
2240-2252
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W1930140904
Cited by
197
References
6
FWCI
12.55
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: Connecting dynamic vegetation models to data – an inverse perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02745.x
The paper
Hartig, F., Dyke, J., Hickler, T., Higgins, S. I., O’Hara, R. B., Scheiter, S., & Huth, A. (2012). Connecting dynamic vegetation models to data – an inverse perspective. Journal of Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02745.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.