Harmonising plant functional type distributions for evaluating Earth system models

Abstract. Dynamic vegetation models simulate global vegetation in terms of fractional coverage of a few plant functional types (PFTs). Although these models often share the same concept, they differ with respect to the number and kind of PFTs, complicating the comparability of simulated vegetation distributions. Pollen-based vegetation reconstructions are initially only available in the form of time series of individual taxa that are not distinguished in the models. Thus, to evaluate simulated vegetation distributions, the modelling results and pollen-based vegetation reconstructions have to be converted into a comparable format. The classical approach is the method of biomisation, but hitherto PFT-based biomisation methods were only available for individual models. We introduce and evaluate a simple, universally applicable technique to harmonise PFT distributions by assigning them into nine mega-biomes, using only assumptions on the minimum PFT cover fractions and few bioclimatic constraints (based on the 2 m temperature). These constraints mainly follow the limitation rules used in the classical biome models (here BIOME4). We test the method for six state-of-the-art dynamic vegetation models that are included in Earth system models based on pre-industrial, mid-Holocene and Last Glacial Maximum simulations. The method works well, independent of the spatial resolution or the complexity of the models. Large biome belts (such as tropical forest) are generally better represented than regionally confined biomes (warm–temperate forest, savanna). The comparison with biome distributions inferred via the classical biomisation approach of forcing biome models (here BIOME1) with the simulated climate states shows that the PFT-based biomisation is even able to keep up with the classical method. However, as the new method considers the PFT distributions actually calculated by the Earth system models, it allows for a direct comparison and evaluation of simulated vegetation distributions which the classical method cannot do. Thereby, the new method provides a powerful tool for the evaluation of Earth system models in general.

[1]  Jinfeng Chang,et al.  The large mean body size of mammalian herbivores explains the productivity paradox during the last glacial maximum , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[2]  J. Ni,et al.  Biome changes and their inferred climatic drivers in northern and eastern continental Asia at selected times since 40 cal ka bp , 2018, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany.

[3]  Daniel S. Goll,et al.  ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model description and validation , 2017 .

[4]  Gregoire Mariethoz,et al.  Spatial Sensitivity Analysis of Simulated Land Surface Patterns in a Catchment Model Using a Set of Innovative Spatial Performance Metrics , 2017 .

[5]  J. Marotzke,et al.  The effect of greenhouse gas concentrations and ice sheets on the glacial AMOC in a coupled climate model , 2016 .

[6]  M. Claussen,et al.  Biome changes in Asia since the mid-Holocene – an analysis of different transient Earth system model simulations , 2016 .

[7]  S. Harrison,et al.  What have we learnt from palaeoclimate simulations? , 2016 .

[8]  I. Prentice,et al.  Effects of fire and CO2 on biogeography and primary production in glacial and modern climates. , 2015, The New phytologist.

[9]  P. Ciais,et al.  Improving the dynamics of Northern Hemisphere high-latitude vegetation in the ORCHIDEE ecosystem model , 2015 .

[10]  Michelle Harrold,et al.  Beyond the Basics: Evaluating Model-Based Precipitation Forecasts Using Traditional, Spatial, and Object-Based Methods , 2014 .

[11]  P. Jones,et al.  Updated high‐resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10 Dataset , 2014 .

[12]  D. Rossatto,et al.  Cerrado vegetation and global change: the role of functional types, resource availability and disturbance in regulating plant community responses to rising CO2 levels and climate warming , 2014, Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology.

[13]  Yufang Jin,et al.  Vegetation controls on northern high latitude snow‐albedo feedback: observations and CMIP5 model simulations , 2014, Global change biology.

[14]  W. Collins,et al.  The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for Collaborative Research , 2013 .

[15]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Representation of natural and anthropogenic land cover change in MPI‐ESM , 2013 .

[16]  B. Stevens,et al.  Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI‐ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 , 2013 .

[17]  Marion Mittermaier,et al.  A long‐term assessment of precipitation forecast skill using the Fractions Skill Score , 2013 .

[18]  S. Bony,et al.  Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5 , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[19]  O. Phillips,et al.  On the delineation of tropical vegetation types with an emphasis on forest/savanna transitions , 2013 .

[20]  E. Guilyardi,et al.  Mid-Holocene and last glacial maximum climate simulations with the IPSL model: part II: model-data comparisons , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[21]  L. Dupont,et al.  Tropical vegetation response to Heinrich Event 1 as simulated with the UVic ESCM and CCSM3 , 2012 .

[22]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[23]  L. Dupont,et al.  Tropical climate and vegetation changes during Heinrich Event 1: a model-data comparison , 2012 .

[24]  C. Jones,et al.  Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model - HadGEM2 , 2011 .

[25]  S. Emori,et al.  MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments , 2011 .

[26]  S. Higgins,et al.  When is a ‘forest’ a savanna, and why does it matter? , 2011 .

[27]  W. Bond,et al.  Deciphering the distribution of the savanna biome. , 2011, The New phytologist.

[28]  T. Killeen,et al.  Characterisation of Bolivian savanna ecosystems by their modern pollen rain and implications for fossil pollen records , 2011 .

[29]  I. Prentice,et al.  Global vegetation and terrestrial carbon cycle changes after the last ice age. , 2011, The New phytologist.

[30]  J. Ni,et al.  Quantifying modern biomes based on surface pollen data in China , 2010 .

[31]  Sandy P. Harrison,et al.  Ecophysiological and bioclimatic foundations for a global plant functional classification , 2010 .

[32]  Ge Yu,et al.  Palaeovegetation in China during the late Quaternary: Biome reconstructions based on a global scheme of plant functional types , 2010 .

[33]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Holocene carbon cycle dynamics , 2010 .

[34]  Eric Gilleland,et al.  Intercomparison of Spatial Forecast Verification Methods , 2009 .

[35]  P. Bartlein,et al.  Effects of experimental protocol on global vegetation model accuracy: A comparison of simulated and observed vegetation patterns for Asia , 2009 .

[36]  Alex Hagen-Zanker,et al.  An improved Fuzzy Kappa statistic that accounts for spatial autocorrelation , 2009, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[37]  C. Hewitt,et al.  Evaluation of coupled ocean–atmosphere simulations of the mid-Holocene using palaeovegetation data from the northern hemisphere extratropics , 2008 .

[38]  N. Roberts,et al.  Scale-Selective Verification of Rainfall Accumulations from High-Resolution Forecasts of Convective Events , 2008 .

[39]  Hisashi Sato,et al.  SEIB–DGVM: A new Dynamic Global Vegetation Model using a spatially explicit individual-based approach , 2007 .

[40]  Stephen Sitch,et al.  Dynamic global vegetation modelling: quantifying terrestrial ecosystem responses to large-scale environmental change , 2007 .

[41]  E. Maier‐Reimer,et al.  Dynamics of the terrestrial biosphere, climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration during interglacials: a comparison between Eemian and Holocene , 2006 .

[42]  H. Goosse,et al.  Climate of the Last Glacial Maximum: sensitivity studies and model-data comparison with the LOVECLIM coupled model , 2006 .

[43]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere‐biosphere system , 2005 .

[44]  R. Betts,et al.  Pre-industrial-potential and Last Glacial Maximum global vegetation simulated with a coupled climate-biosphere model: diagnosis of bioclimatic relationships , 2005 .

[45]  Sandy P. Harrison,et al.  Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55°N between the last glacial maximum, mid‐Holocene, and present , 2003 .

[46]  Sandy P. Harrison,et al.  Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 2. Modeling, paleodata‐model comparisons, and future projections , 2003 .

[47]  Sandy P. Harrison,et al.  Climate and CO2 controls on global vegetation distribution at the last glacial maximum: analysis based on palaeovegetation data, biome modelling and palaeoclimate simulations , 2003 .

[48]  N. Diffenbaugh,et al.  Vegetation sensitivity to global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in a topographically complex region , 2003 .

[49]  Alex Hagen,et al.  Fuzzy set approach to assessing similarity of categorical maps , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[50]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model , 2003 .

[51]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[52]  D. Jolly,et al.  Mid‐Holocene and glacial‐maximum vegetation geography of the northern continents and Africa , 2000 .

[53]  Victor Brovkin,et al.  CLIMBER-2: a climate system model of intermediate complexity. Part I: model description and performance for present climate , 2000 .

[54]  N. Ramankutty,et al.  Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992 , 1999 .

[55]  M. Sykes,et al.  Quantifying the Impact of Global Climate Change on Potential Natural Vegetation , 1999 .

[56]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  BIOME 6000: reconstructing global mid‐Holocene vegetation patterns from palaeoecological records , 1998 .

[57]  S. Harrison,et al.  Simulated climate and biomes of Africa during the late quaternary: comparison with pollen and lake status data , 1998 .

[58]  V. Brovkin,et al.  A continuous climate-vegetation classification for use in climate-biosphere studies , 1997 .

[59]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  BIOME3: An equilibrium terrestrial biosphere model based on ecophysiological constraints, resource availability, and competition among plant functional types , 1996 .

[60]  B Huntley,et al.  Reconstructing biomes from palaeoecological data: a general method and its application to European pollen data at 0 and 6 ka , 1996 .

[61]  R. Leemans,et al.  Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistic , 1992 .

[62]  W. Cramer,et al.  A global biome model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate , 1992 .

[63]  R. Bradshaw,et al.  The Selection of Sites for Paleovegetational Studies , 1981, Quaternary Research.

[64]  J. R. Landis,et al.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. , 1977, Biometrics.

[65]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .