Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

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

Plant functional type mapping for earth system models

Open access
Poulter, B., Ciais, P., Hodson, E., Lischke, H., Maignan, F., Plummer, S., Zimmermann, N. E.·2011·Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract

Abstract. The sensitivity of global carbon and water cycling to climate variability is coupled directly to land cover and the distribution of vegetation. To investigate biogeochemistry-climate interactions, earth system models require a representation of vegetation distributions that are either prescribed from remote sensing data or simulated via biogeography models. However, the abstraction of earth system state variables in models means that data products derived from remote sensing need to be post-processed for model-data assimilation. Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVM) rely on the concept of plant functional types (PFT) to group shared traits of thousands of plant species into usually only 10–20 classes. Available databases of observed PFT distributions must be relevant to existing satellite sensors and their derived products, and to the present day distribution of managed lands. Here, we develop four PFT datasets based on land-cover information from three satellite sensors (EOS-MODIS 1 km and 0.5 km, SPOT4-VEGETATION 1 km, and ENVISAT-MERIS 0.3 km spatial resolution) that are merged with spatially-consistent Köppen-Geiger climate zones. Using a beta (ß) diversity metric to assess reclassification similarity, we find that the greatest uncertainty in PFT classifications occur most frequently between cropland and grassland categories, and in dryland systems between shrubland, grassland and forest categories because of differences in the minimum threshold required for forest cover. The biogeography-biogeochemistry DGVM, LPJmL, is used in diagnostic mode with the four PFT datasets prescribed to quantify the effect of land-cover uncertainty on climatic sensitivity of gross primary productivity (GPP) and transpiration fluxes. Our results show that land-cover uncertainty has large effects in arid regions, contributing up to 30% (20%) uncertainty in the sensitivity of GPP (transpiration) to precipitation. The availability of PFT datasets that are consistent with current satellite products and adapted for earth system models is an important component for reducing the uncertainty of terrestrial biogeochemistry to climate variability.

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 · 10.5194/gmd-4-993-2011

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 184

Metadata

Authors
Poulter, B., Ciais, P., Hodson, E., Lischke, H., Maignan, F., Plummer, S., & Zimmermann, N. E.
Venue
Geoscientific Model Development
Published
2011-11-16
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
993-1010
ISSN
  • 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
  • 1991-9603
OpenAlex
W2130108233
Cited by
184
References
6
FWCI
6.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Plant functional type mapping for earth system models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/gmd-4-993-2011
The paper
Poulter, B., Ciais, P., Hodson, E., Lischke, H., Maignan, F., Plummer, S., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2011). Plant functional type mapping for earth system models. Geoscientific Model Development. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-993-2011

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.