An analysis of some diverse approaches to modelling terrestrial net primary productivity

B. Adams, A. White, T. M. Lenton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 69 Citations

Abstract

We inter-compare the mathematical formulation of ten models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) and their functional responses to temperature (T), carbon dioxide (CO2), soil water (W) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The models span a broad spectrum of complexity of approaches from the original, empirical Miami model, through β-factor, and global-average box models, to the dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) TRIFFID and BIOME3. Five of the models separate photosynthesis and respiration, although only three directly consider biochemistry. Equations for all the models are given in a complete, compact, standardized format. NPP responses to temperature differ markedly: β-factor models show only a tiny increase with temperature, empirical models predict a modest S-shaped response saturating above 35 °C (a surrogate for drought effects), biochemical and quasi-biochemical models show a peaked response with an optimum in the range 15–25 °C except for DEMETER (<10 °C). Qualitative differences in whether respiration exhibits a peaked or exponential response to temperature have only a modest effect on NPP. The CO2 response of NPP is qualitatively similar in all but one model that misrepresents it. Where a water stress response of NPP is represented, it is saturating in all but the same model, where NPP declines under high soil moisture. Where represented, the PAR response of NPP is saturating, but the saturation point differs considerably. When responses to two environmental variables are combined, the second variable typically just scales the response to the first. In biochemical models, the temperature optimum of NPP increases with CO2, and it also increases noticeably with PAR in TRIFFID and a derivative of it. Where different plant functional types (PFTs) are represented, C4 grasses have the greatest maximum NPP at a higher optimum temperature than any C3 PFT. Boreal, needle-leaf trees generally have the lowest NPP. Additional uncertainties in modelling respiration, stomatal conductance, light-use efficiency, and scaling to the canopy level are discussed. We suggest that a concerted effort to standardize definitions, notation, units and PFTs would add a degree of transparency that is currently lacking in NPP modelling.
LanguageEnglish
Pages353-391
JournalEcological Modelling
Volume177
Issue number3-4
DOIs
StatusPublished - Oct 2004

Fingerprint

productivity
modeling
photosynthetically active radiation
respiration
temperature
analysis
DEMETER
light use efficiency
C3 plant
functional response
biochemistry
stomatal conductance
water stress
transparency
photosynthesis
soil moisture
carbon dioxide
soil water
drought
canopy

Cite this

An analysis of some diverse approaches to modelling terrestrial net primary productivity. / Adams, B.; White, A.; Lenton, T. M.

In: Ecological Modelling, Vol. 177, No. 3-4, 10.2004, p. 353-391.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f9630449e6064dfc82f6f7d0fa2dfdf6,
title = "An analysis of some diverse approaches to modelling terrestrial net primary productivity",
abstract = "We inter-compare the mathematical formulation of ten models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) and their functional responses to temperature (T), carbon dioxide (CO2), soil water (W) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The models span a broad spectrum of complexity of approaches from the original, empirical Miami model, through β-factor, and global-average box models, to the dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) TRIFFID and BIOME3. Five of the models separate photosynthesis and respiration, although only three directly consider biochemistry. Equations for all the models are given in a complete, compact, standardized format. NPP responses to temperature differ markedly: β-factor models show only a tiny increase with temperature, empirical models predict a modest S-shaped response saturating above 35 °C (a surrogate for drought effects), biochemical and quasi-biochemical models show a peaked response with an optimum in the range 15–25 °C except for DEMETER (<10 °C). Qualitative differences in whether respiration exhibits a peaked or exponential response to temperature have only a modest effect on NPP. The CO2 response of NPP is qualitatively similar in all but one model that misrepresents it. Where a water stress response of NPP is represented, it is saturating in all but the same model, where NPP declines under high soil moisture. Where represented, the PAR response of NPP is saturating, but the saturation point differs considerably. When responses to two environmental variables are combined, the second variable typically just scales the response to the first. In biochemical models, the temperature optimum of NPP increases with CO2, and it also increases noticeably with PAR in TRIFFID and a derivative of it. Where different plant functional types (PFTs) are represented, C4 grasses have the greatest maximum NPP at a higher optimum temperature than any C3 PFT. Boreal, needle-leaf trees generally have the lowest NPP. Additional uncertainties in modelling respiration, stomatal conductance, light-use efficiency, and scaling to the canopy level are discussed. We suggest that a concerted effort to standardize definitions, notation, units and PFTs would add a degree of transparency that is currently lacking in NPP modelling.",
author = "B. Adams and A. White and Lenton, {T. M.}",
year = "2004",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.014",
language = "English",
volume = "177",
pages = "353--391",
journal = "Ecological Modelling",
issn = "0304-3800",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of some diverse approaches to modelling terrestrial net primary productivity

AU - Adams,B.

AU - White,A.

AU - Lenton,T. M.

PY - 2004/10

Y1 - 2004/10

N2 - We inter-compare the mathematical formulation of ten models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) and their functional responses to temperature (T), carbon dioxide (CO2), soil water (W) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The models span a broad spectrum of complexity of approaches from the original, empirical Miami model, through β-factor, and global-average box models, to the dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) TRIFFID and BIOME3. Five of the models separate photosynthesis and respiration, although only three directly consider biochemistry. Equations for all the models are given in a complete, compact, standardized format. NPP responses to temperature differ markedly: β-factor models show only a tiny increase with temperature, empirical models predict a modest S-shaped response saturating above 35 °C (a surrogate for drought effects), biochemical and quasi-biochemical models show a peaked response with an optimum in the range 15–25 °C except for DEMETER (<10 °C). Qualitative differences in whether respiration exhibits a peaked or exponential response to temperature have only a modest effect on NPP. The CO2 response of NPP is qualitatively similar in all but one model that misrepresents it. Where a water stress response of NPP is represented, it is saturating in all but the same model, where NPP declines under high soil moisture. Where represented, the PAR response of NPP is saturating, but the saturation point differs considerably. When responses to two environmental variables are combined, the second variable typically just scales the response to the first. In biochemical models, the temperature optimum of NPP increases with CO2, and it also increases noticeably with PAR in TRIFFID and a derivative of it. Where different plant functional types (PFTs) are represented, C4 grasses have the greatest maximum NPP at a higher optimum temperature than any C3 PFT. Boreal, needle-leaf trees generally have the lowest NPP. Additional uncertainties in modelling respiration, stomatal conductance, light-use efficiency, and scaling to the canopy level are discussed. We suggest that a concerted effort to standardize definitions, notation, units and PFTs would add a degree of transparency that is currently lacking in NPP modelling.

AB - We inter-compare the mathematical formulation of ten models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) and their functional responses to temperature (T), carbon dioxide (CO2), soil water (W) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The models span a broad spectrum of complexity of approaches from the original, empirical Miami model, through β-factor, and global-average box models, to the dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) TRIFFID and BIOME3. Five of the models separate photosynthesis and respiration, although only three directly consider biochemistry. Equations for all the models are given in a complete, compact, standardized format. NPP responses to temperature differ markedly: β-factor models show only a tiny increase with temperature, empirical models predict a modest S-shaped response saturating above 35 °C (a surrogate for drought effects), biochemical and quasi-biochemical models show a peaked response with an optimum in the range 15–25 °C except for DEMETER (<10 °C). Qualitative differences in whether respiration exhibits a peaked or exponential response to temperature have only a modest effect on NPP. The CO2 response of NPP is qualitatively similar in all but one model that misrepresents it. Where a water stress response of NPP is represented, it is saturating in all but the same model, where NPP declines under high soil moisture. Where represented, the PAR response of NPP is saturating, but the saturation point differs considerably. When responses to two environmental variables are combined, the second variable typically just scales the response to the first. In biochemical models, the temperature optimum of NPP increases with CO2, and it also increases noticeably with PAR in TRIFFID and a derivative of it. Where different plant functional types (PFTs) are represented, C4 grasses have the greatest maximum NPP at a higher optimum temperature than any C3 PFT. Boreal, needle-leaf trees generally have the lowest NPP. Additional uncertainties in modelling respiration, stomatal conductance, light-use efficiency, and scaling to the canopy level are discussed. We suggest that a concerted effort to standardize definitions, notation, units and PFTs would add a degree of transparency that is currently lacking in NPP modelling.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.014

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.014

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.014

M3 - Article

VL - 177

SP - 353

EP - 391

JO - Ecological Modelling

T2 - Ecological Modelling

JF - Ecological Modelling

SN - 0304-3800

IS - 3-4

ER -