IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v342y2016icp19-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty in carbon allocation strategy and ecophysiological parameterization influences on carbon and streamflow estimates for two western US forested watersheds

Author

Listed:
  • Garcia, Elizabeth S.
  • Tague, Christina L.
  • Choate, Janet S.

Abstract

Increasingly sophisticated process-based ecosystem models account for the ability of plants to vary the proportion of net photosynthate that is allocated to individual organs – such as leaves, stems and roots. Because the governing mechanisms are still not well understood, models differ in the strategies used to represent carbon allocation processes. Allocation schemes may have important implications for ecosystem structure and biogeochemical cycling, thus there is a need to better understand how different carbon allocation strategies influence estimates of variables that are of interest to model users. At the same time, uncertainty in other ecophysiological parameters that are commonly used in carbon cycling models may influence these estimates and interact with different carbon allocation strategies. We use a coupled ecohydrologic model to understand how uncertainty in three relatively simple allocation strategies affects carbon (C) and streamflow estimates in two case study forested mountain watersheds in the western United States: a relatively wet site located in the western Oregon Cascades, and a drier site in California’s Sierra Nevada. Ecophysiological parameters controlling productivity rates, morphology, and nutrient requirements for growth are varied as well. The influence of specific ecophysiological parameters and allocation strategies on C sequestration and streamflow estimates differed between sites. At the wetter site, uncertainty in C cycling processes resulted in a three-fold difference in potential sequestered carbon, but had a negligible effect on annual and low monthly streamflow estimates. Conversely, at the drier site, C pool estimates showed limited sensitivity to ecophysiological parameter uncertainty, but considerable difference in annual and low monthly streamflow estimates across ecophysiological assumptions. At both sites, stemwood C pool estimates exceeded literature-derived field values when branch mortality—a surrogate for density thinning—was not included in addition to background mortality. Despite using site- and species-specific information, we are unable to invalidate any of the allocation strategies considered. Our results suggest that uncertainty in parameterization of ecophysiological parameters and assumptions about carbon allocation can strongly influence model estimates of both streamflow and forest carbon sequestration potential, but that influence is likely to vary with site bioclimatic characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Garcia, Elizabeth S. & Tague, Christina L. & Choate, Janet S., 2016. "Uncertainty in carbon allocation strategy and ecophysiological parameterization influences on carbon and streamflow estimates for two western US forested watersheds," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 342(C), pages 19-33.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:342:y:2016:i:c:p:19-33
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.09.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380016304823
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.09.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Weile & Ichii, Kazuhito & Hashimoto, Hirofumi & Michaelis, Andrew R. & Thornton, Peter E. & Law, Beverly E. & Nemani, Ramakrishna R., 2009. "A hierarchical analysis of terrestrial ecosystem model Biome-BGC: Equilibrium analysis and model calibration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(17), pages 2009-2023.
    2. Mitchell, Stephen & Beven, Keith & Freer, Jim, 2009. "Multiple sources of predictive uncertainty in modeled estimates of net ecosystem CO2 exchange," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(23), pages 3259-3270.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bart, Ryan R. & Kennedy, Maureen C. & Tague, Christina L. & McKenzie, Donald, 2020. "Integrating fire effects on vegetation carbon cycling within an ecohydrologic model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 416(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Govind, Ajit & Chen, Jing Ming & Bernier, Pierre & Margolis, Hank & Guindon, Luc & Beaudoin, Andre, 2011. "Spatially distributed modeling of the long-term carbon balance of a boreal landscape," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2780-2795.
    2. Song, Xiaodong & Bryan, Brett A. & Almeida, Auro C. & Paul, Keryn I. & Zhao, Gang & Ren, Yin, 2013. "Time-dependent sensitivity of a process-based ecological model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 265(C), pages 114-123.
    3. Ma, Shaoxiu & Churkina, Galina & Wieland, Ralf & Gessler, Arthur, 2011. "Optimization and evaluation of the ANTHRO-BGC model for winter crops in Europe," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(20), pages 3662-3679.
    4. Ortiz, Carina & Karltun, Erik & Stendahl, Johan & Gärdenäs, Annemieke I. & Ågren, Göran I., 2011. "Modelling soil carbon development in Swedish coniferous forest soils—An uncertainty analysis of parameters and model estimates using the GLUE method," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(17), pages 3020-3032.
    5. Hidy, D. & Barcza, Z. & Haszpra, L. & Churkina, G. & Pintér, K. & Nagy, Z., 2012. "Development of the Biome-BGC model for simulation of managed herbaceous ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 99-119.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:342:y:2016:i:c:p:19-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.