2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01176.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantifying uncertainty from large‐scale model predictions of forest carbon dynamics

Abstract: Linking environmental computer simulation models and geographic information systems (GIS) is now a common practice to scale up simulations of complex ecosystem processes for decision support. Unfortunately, several important issues of upscaling using GIS are rarely considered; in particular scale dependency of models, availability of input data, support of input and validation data, and uncertainty in prediction including error propagation from the GIS. We linked the biogeochemical Forest-DNDC model to a GIS d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
36
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 5 shows an obvious linear relationship between NDVI and existing aboveground biomass (n=98, R=0.885, α=0.002). To verify the accuracy of the model established in this research, the author used data from 38 randomly selected sampling locations that were collected from 1989 to 2011 to conduct verification and analyzed the error in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) [47].…”
Section: Simulation Of Existing Aboveground Biomassmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Figure 5 shows an obvious linear relationship between NDVI and existing aboveground biomass (n=98, R=0.885, α=0.002). To verify the accuracy of the model established in this research, the author used data from 38 randomly selected sampling locations that were collected from 1989 to 2011 to conduct verification and analyzed the error in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) [47].…”
Section: Simulation Of Existing Aboveground Biomassmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…N is the number of sampling [41,42] and soil organic carbon data from 2011 were measured by the author of this paper) [47]. And the analysis results in Table 4 and Fig.…”
Section: Simulation Of Existing Aboveground Biomassmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…R 2 is used to test the agreement between the modeled results and observations, where a value closer to 1 indicates that the model provides a better explanation for the observed values (Willmott, 1982). The positive ME value indicates that the model prediction is better than the mean of observations, and the best model performance has ME value equal to 1 (Miehle, 2006). RMSE, R 2 and ME were calculated as follows:…”
Section: Model Validation and Sensitivity Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a lack of consistent conclusions regarding the impact of grazing on the SOC concentration according to previous studies. Thus, some studies showed that the grazing intensity and SOC had a negative correlation (Derner et al, 1997;Bagchi and Ritchie, 2010;Wu et al, 2009) or no relationship (Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993;Holt, 1997). By contrast, many other studies showed that grazing can increase the SOC (Schuman et al, 1999;Wienhold et al, 2001;Li et al, 2011).…”
Section: Effects Of Grazing Intensity On Biomass and Socmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2). A positive value of ME indicates that the model predictions are better than the mean of the measurements, and the best model performance has ME value equal to 1 (Miehle et al, 2006;Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970).…”
Section: Model Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%