Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in the MC1 Model
    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in the MC1 Model
    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in the MC1 Model
    Ebook607 pages6 hours

    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in the MC1 Model

    By David Turner

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in MC1 model describes the creation in the mid 1990s, architecture, uses, and limitations of the MC1 dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) that is being used by an increasing number of research groups around the world. The scientific foundation of most models is often poorly documented and difficult to access, and a centralized source of information for MC1, including the complete list of over eighty papers and reports with MC1 results will be useful to scientists and users who want to better understand the model and the output it generates. 

    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in MC1 model will be a valuable resource for students and researchers in the fields of climate change science, conservation science, biogeochemistry and ecology, as well as for land managers looking for a better understanding of the projections of climate change impacts and of the tools that have been developed to produce them.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherWiley
    Release dateOct 30, 2015
    ISBN9781119011736
    Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in the MC1 Model

    Related to Global Vegetation Dynamics

    Titles in the series (69)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Agriculture For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      What’s the Role of the Land Carbon Sink in Achieving US Climate Goals?

      Apr 10, 2024

      Land absorbs a lot of human-created carbon emissions, but is its ability to do so unlimited? And how does climate change affect this process?

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A 30-year-to-do list

      Sep 13, 2019

      LAST YEAR’S LANDMARK REPORT FROM THE U.N. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL on Climate Change issued dire warnings about the earth warming more than 1.5°C. The good news is that the IPCC also gave us a road map for tackling the problem. At time.com/one.five, y

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      From Research to Action: The Growing Impact of Attribution Science

      Mar 7, 2023

      Attribution science can help governments develop policies to address climate change at its source.

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      So, We’ve Declared A Climate And Biodiversity Emergency. Where To From Here?

      May 6, 2020

      The main pressures facing the Australian environment today are the same as they have been for years: climate change, land-use change, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and invasive species.1 In 2016, almost silently, the Bramble Cay melomys ( Me

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Do Crops Sometimes Make Deforestation Worth It?

      Aug 7, 2017

      In some places, the benefits of deforestation outweigh the costs, according to a new analysis of the trade-offs between the benefits provided by tropical forests and their conversion to agricultural land. “A better understanding of the distribution o

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      3 Plans To Avoid Blackouts Using 100% Renewable Energy

      Feb 12, 2018

      Researchers have proposed three different methods for providing consistent power in 139 countries using 100 percent renewable energy. The inconsistencies of power produced by wind, water, and sunlight and the continuously fluctuating demand for energ

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Massive Investments in the Midwest Grid are Worth Celebrating

      Dec 12, 2024

      The Midwest is about to get a major power boost—generating jobs, economic growth, and enabling a cleaner energy future at the same time.

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Ask a Scientist: Gas Power Plants Disproportionately Harm Marginalized Communities

      Feb 9, 2024

      Gas infrastructure has extremely harmful impacts on public health and the environment: air pollution, water contamination, habitat loss, soil degradation, and destroyed cultural sites.

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Reevaluating The Role Of Fossil Gas In A Decarbonizing Grid

      Mar 12, 2024

      Fossil gas will certainly have a role to play in helping to meet peak demand as we move to a decarbonized electricity grid. But the latest research and modeling suggests that it’s time to reassess how large a role that should be.

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      In Climate Fight, Carbon Removal Is Still a Risky Path

      May 24, 2017

      Assuming that the deployment of carbon removal technology will outpace emissions and conquer global climate change is a poor substitute for taking action now, say researchers. With the current pace of renewable energy deployment and emissions reducti

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Would More Reflective Surfaces Beat Heat Waves?

      Jan 31, 2018

      Unploughed fields and brighter cities could help lower extreme temperatures during periods of hot weather, particularly in important agricultural regions and densely populated areas of Europe and North America, new research suggests. “Even this clima

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Nuclear Option Too Expensive, Too Dangerous For SA

      Jul 21, 2024

      South Africa stands at a crucial crossroad. The deepening energy crisis has illuminated gaps in our infrastructure, tempting the Government of National Unity (GNU) towards nuclear energy. Despite public opposition and civil society efforts to defeat

      4 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Global Vegetation Dynamics

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Global Vegetation Dynamics - Dominique Bachelet

      Part I

      General Description of the Model MC1

      1

      History and General Description of the Dynamic Global Vegetation Model MC1

      Dominique Bachelet

      Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

      ABSTRACT

      The model MC1 was designed during the second phase of the Vegetation Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP), a collaborative multiagency project designed to simulate and understand ecosystem dynamics for the continental United States [VEMAP members, 1995]. The goal was to focus on transient vegetation dynamics and to link biogeography and biogeochemistry models so that the trajectory of ecosystems between historical and future time periods could be simulated. The model was designed to simulate the potential vegetation that would occur without direct intervention by industrialized societies. Since then, applications of MC1 have included effects of humans on vegetation through cattle grazing and fire suppression as well as direct (CO2) and indirect (climate) effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The MC1 model has been used in many projects, at various spatial scales (50 m−50 km) and for different spatial domains (national parks to global) as illustrated by over 80 reports and publications using its projections of vegetation response to climate change. This chapter briefly describes its history and its design.

      1.1. MODEL HISTORY

      To prepare for the effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems, it is essential to understand how climate has driven vegetation distribution and the carbon cycle in the past and how it may affect them in the future. It is well recognized that land use may have transformed some landscapes more than climate, but future land use changes will depend on social and political decisions that are impossible to forecast while climate models can provide robust projections of climate futures. Moreover, anthropogenic influences do not affect all ecosystems equally. Many ecosystems still strongly reflect direct climatic influences, and their response to climate change is likely to influence the ecosystem services they provide. While farmers have access to management alternatives (irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, genetically modified annual crops) that can alleviate some of the more negative effects of weather, foresters and pastoralists have adapted their management practices to account for climatic influences and will continue to do so, benefiting from projections of natural vegetation responses to change. Therefore many climate change research projects have focused on understanding the effects of future climate on natural vegetation.

      The Vegetation Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP) was a collaborative multiagency project designed to simulate and understand ecosystem dynamics in the conterminous United States [VEMAP members, 1995]. During the first phase of VEMAP, potential vegetation maps for historical and for future conditions were generated by the static biogeography models MAPSS (Mapped Atmosphere Plant Soil System) [Neilson, 1995], BIOME2 [Prentice et al., 1992], and DOLY (Dynamic glObaL phytogeographY) [Woodward et al., 1995] using 30-year average observed as well as projected climate data, providing instantaneous snapshots of what was (historical starting point) and what might become (future endpoint) the vegetation distribution over the country without describing the path it might follow to get there. The gridded vegetation maps produced by the static models were then provided to three biogeochemistry models, CENTURY [Parton et al., 1987, 1988, 1993], BIOME-BGC (Biome BioGeochemical Cycle) [Hunt and Running, 1992; Running and Hunt, 1993], and TEM (Terrestrial Ecosystem Model) [McGuire et al., 1992; Melillo et al., 1993; Tian et al., 2000], to calculate the carbon stocks that matched the simulated vegetation type for these two time periods. Phenology and fire disturbance were prescribed in all cases. The underlying assumption was that chronic change was happening and that ecosystem trajectories between 2000 and 2100 were linear. However, scientists believed this assumption might be wrong and wanted to create a model that could explore transient ecosystem dynamics during the 21st century. One of the hypotheses was that land could first greenup with warmer temperatures but instead of increasing its productivity continuously until 2100 could be affected by the exceedence of a particular climatic threshold causing a browndown driven by increasing evaporative demand and drought stress associated with vegetation shifts, declines in productivity, and carbon losses.

      During the second phase of VEMAP, instead of focusing on instantaneous snapshots of what might happen in terms of vegetation type change and concurrent shifts in the location of carbon sources and sinks, the goal was to focus on year-to-year variations and link biogeography and biogeochemistry models so that the trajectory of the ecosystems between historical and future time periods was simulated. At the time there were only a couple of research groups addressing this issue. A team composed of Oregon State University scientists including Chris Daly, Jim Lenihan, and Dominique Bachelet, under the leadership of USFS Ron Neilson and with financial support from the USDA Forest Service, started to link the biogeography rules adapted from the MAPSS biogeography model [Neilson, 1995] to a modified version of the CENTURY biogeochemistry model [Metherell et al., 1993] in order to create what was to become the model MC1 [Bachelet et al., 2001a, 2003]. Two other VEMAP-related projects emerged to link biogeochemistry models and biography models, MAPSS with BIOME-BGC (the BIOMAP model, originally started by Ron Neilson, now retired, remains under construction by John Kim, USFS), MAPSS with TEM (project lead by Jeff Borchers terminated before the new model was finished). Neither of the two latter projects provided usable DGVMs to this date. Other combinations of models were never explored by other group members despite the original project objectives.

      For MC1, climate-based rules were extracted from the MAPSS biogeography model while the species-specific set of parameters in the CENTURY biogeochemistry model were replaced by globally relevant lifeform parameters. These parameters were defined so as to vary continuously with the fraction of each lifeform under different climate conditions. On the basis of climate zones and a few climatic indices (growing season precipitation, mean monthly minimum temperature), lifeform combinations were used to specify general vegetation types (e.g. maritime evergreen needleleaf forest) defined further by biomass thresholds [unlike the MAPSS model approach of using leaf area index (LAI)–based on an optimized hydrological budget–and ignoring the carbon budget]. The CENTURY code was modified, and only the savanna mode was implemented whereby grasses and trees competed for resources at all time. ¹ Moreover, deep water was made accessible only to tree roots and surface nitrogen was preferentially accessible to grasses. The first area where the model was tested (at 50-m resolution) and competition between trees and grasses simulated at an existing ecotone, was Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota [Daly et al., 2000; Bachelet et al., 2000].

      Since then, the MC1 model has been used in many projects, at various spatial scales and for different domains. After Lenihan et al. [2003] started producing results for the state of California, Galbraith et al. [2006] considered MC1 projections as an essential first step for an integrated assessment of the potential overall effects of climate change on the status and distribution of California’s major vegetation communities. Gucinski [2005] was one of the first to use it for natural resource management purposes. It was later used at the Nature Conservancy to anticipate and plan for potential biome shifts under warming climates [Aldous et al., 2007] and to design sustainable strategies for prairie chicken conservation [McLachlan et al., 2011]. Projections of changes in fire regimes [Bachelet et al., 2008] have been used for regional climate change assessments [e.g., Kueppers et al., 2009; Halofsky et al., 2014]. They and other model results were included in climate change adaptation reports [e.g., Doppelt et al., 2008, 2009; Halofsky et al., 2011] and used in various workshops [e.g., Barr et al., 2010, 2011; Koopman et al., 2010, 2011] where stakeholders had an opportunity to learn to interpret model results and discuss implications. An up-to-date list of publications that have included MC1 results as an important part of the work published is available in Appendix 1.

      To expand the visibility and use of the model, the MC1 code has been made available under version control and is currently provided through an Oregon State University website (https://sites.google.com/site/mc1dgvmusers/home/mc1-source-repository-at-the-osu-biological-ecological-engineering-dept). A webpage was designed specifically for MC1 users interested in learning about the latest code revisions (https://sites.google.com/site/mc1dgvmusers/). In 2010, a users’ network was created to share MC1 code updates and simulation-related issues between users (http://groups.google.com/group/mc1-dgvm-users). An MC1 developers group (http://groups.google.com/group/mc1-developers) was also created and met monthly until 2012. The USDA Forest Service provided training (with Drs. J. Lenihan and R. Drapek, as well as B. Pitts) for graduate students (B. Rogers, M. McGlinchy, both M.S. students with Dr. B. Law at Oregon State University) in 2010 and funding from the OSU Institute of Natural Resource was used in 2012 (with Dr. D. Conklin) at the Conservation Biology Institute to train a few more scientists. The first MC1 users conference took place in January 2011, and videos of the various presentations are available on the web (http://www.fsl.orst.edu/dgvm/agenda.htm).

      1.2. MC1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

      MC1 is a dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) that simulates vegetation distribution, biogeochemical cycling, and wildfire in a highly interactive manner (Figure 1.1). The model always simulates competition between trees and grasses, where the former term refers to all woody lifeforms, including shrubs, and the latter term refers to all nonwoody lifeforms, including forbs and sedges. Shrubs are not explicitly simulated with their own physiological characteristics but are defined as short-stature woody lifeforms. The model does not simulate individual species. The model was designed to simulate the potential vegetation that would occur without direct intervention by humans. However, indirect effects such as grazing, fire suppression, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations can and have been included.

      c1-fig-0001

      Figure 1.1 Diagram describing the MC1 model; the biogeography model is composed of (1) a lifeform interpreter (lower left) that uses climate rules to determine climate-adapted lifeforms (E = evergreen; D = deciduous; N = needleleaf; B = broadleaf; GSP = growing season precipitation; MMT = minimum monthly temperature), (2) the vegetation classifier (upper left) that uses climate rules and biomass thresholds (see Table 1.3) for the two competing lifeforms (tree and grass) to determine vegetation types (C3 = cool grasses with C3 photosynthetic pathway; C4 = warm grasses with C4 photosynthetic pathway; C = carbon). This information is shared with the fire module (upper right) to inform allometric relationships that are used to determine the type of fire (surface or crown). The biogeochemistry model (lower right) calculates the biomass for each lifeform and passes this information to the vegetation classifier that uses it to determine the vegetation type. Live (Br = branches; R = roots; S.O.M. = soil organic matter; N = nitrogen) and dead biomass pools are also passed to the fire module that translates them into fuel classes. Biomass killed by fire or consumed by fire is passed back to the biogeochemistry module.

      The model is a gridpoint model that operates on a monthly time step across an input-defined spatial grid. Each grid cell is simulated independently, with no cell-to-cell communication. However, drought conditions that trigger simulated fires often occur regionwide, resulting in similar fire effects across contiguous cells.

      1.2.1. Biogeography Module

      This module simulates transient changes in biogeography through time, depending on climate-based rules as well as biomass thresholds. It is composed of two distinct components. The lifeform interpreter uses temperature- and precipitation-based rules to simulate leaf morphology and phenology for woody lifeforms (Table 1.1). Woody lifeforms include evergreen needleleaf, deciduous needleleaf, evergreen broadleaf, and deciduous broadleaf categories. The mixture of woody lifeforms is determined annually as a function of the minimum temperature of the coldest month and the growing season precipitation smoothed by an efolding function (Figure 1.2). This function progressively diminishes the influence of each year’s climate on the smoothed climate variables. Using smoothed climate reduces overly rapid transitions between tree types and was implemented to better represent the inertia of vegetation to short-term climate variability [Daly et al., 2000]. The lifeform interpreter separates grasses by their photosynthetic pathway. The C3/C4 mixture is determined by the ratio of C3/C4 grass productivity, calculated using temperature of the three consecutive warmest months, subject to the above efolding function. High warm-season temperatures favor C4 grasses. Woody and herbaceous lifeforms are always simulated together and compete for resources (water, nutrient, light), which results in variable biomass values simulated in the biogeochemistry module described below. Relative dominance varies as a function of climatic conditions that limit the availability of the resources as mediated by fire disturbance.

      Table 1.1 Thresholds used in the lifeform interpreter as woody lifeform determination rules (D = deciduous; N = needleleaf; E = evergreen; B = broadleaf). Temperatures and precipitation are smoothed by an efolding factor of 10 years (T min = minimum monthly temperature, T max = maximum monthly temperature).

      c1-fig-0002

      Figure 1.2 Diagram describing the lifeform interpreter. The fraction of evergreen needleleaf versus broadleaf lifeforms in each grid cell is determined annually as a function of the minimum temperature of the coldest month (MMT) and growing season precipitation (GSP), both smoothed over 10 years to avoid overly rapid transitions.

      The vegetation classifier uses climate zone definitions (Table 1.2) and biomass thresholds to combine lifeforms into vegetation types (Table 1.3), each defined by the association of a climate-defined tree functional type as defined above and either a C3 or a C4 grass. High-latitude vegetation types are simply defined by the growing degree-days that define their climate zone. There are 38 possibilities of potential vegetation types in MC1 that span all the climatic zones, with 14 vegetation types within the temperate zone alone (Table 1.3).

      Table 1.2 Climate zone thresholds (temperatures are smoothed by a factor of 10 years) (GDD = sum of growing degree-days above 0°C; T min = minimum monthly temperature).

      Table 1.3 Climate and biomass thresholds defining the possible potential vegetation types that can be used in MC1.

      Note: Tree refers to woody lifeforms in general, including shrubs and trees; grass refers to herbaceous lifeforms including sedges and forbs (E = evergreen, D = deciduous, N = needleleaf, B = broadleaf; NPP = net primary production). Temperatures used to calculate growing degree-days (GDD) are smoothed over 10 years.

      1.2.2. Biogeochemistry Module

      The biogeochemistry model is a modified version of the CENTURY model [Metherell et al., 1993] that simulates the cycling of carbon and nitrogen among ecosystem compartments, including plant parts and multiple classes of litter and soil organic matter (Figure 1.3). A list and definitions of the standard variables commonly generated for most research projects with MC1 are provided in Table 1.4. Live and dead plant components include leaves, fine and coarse branches, fine and coarse roots. Dead herbaceous material composes the standing dead compartment. Dead plant material is transferred to aboveground or belowground litter compartments that decompose into three soil carbon pools of increasingly slower turnover rates, releasing CO2 fluxes defined as heterotrophic respiration as described in the CENTURY model [Metherell et al., 1993]. Decomposition rates are influenced by soil texture, soil moisture, and temperature, as well as by the existing soil carbon content and the nutrient content of the dead material.

      c1-fig-0003

      Figure 1.3 Diagram describing the various carbon pools in the MC1 model (P = production; GR = growth respiration; MR = maintenance respiration; HR = heterotrophic respiration; SOM = soil organic

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1