Author
Listed:
- Huimin Zou
(College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
- Jiquan Chen
(Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA)
- Changliang Shao
(Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)
- Gang Dong
(School of Life Science, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, China)
- Meihui Duan
(College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
- Qingsong Zhu
(College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
- Xianglan Li
(College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
Abstract
Selecting an appropriate model for simulating ecosystem respiration is critical in modeling the carbon cycle of terrestrial ecosystems due to their magnitude and high variations in time and space. There is no consensus on the ideal model for estimating ecosystem respiration in different ecosystems. We evaluated the performances of six respiration models, including Arrhenius, logistic, Gamma, Martin, Concilio, and time series model, against measured ecosystem respiration during 2014–2018 in four grassland ecosystems on the Mongolian Plateau: shrubland, dry steppe, temperate steppe, and meadow ecosystems. Ecosystem respiration increased exponentially with soil temperature within an apparent threshold of ~19.62 °C at shrubland, ~16.05 °C at dry steppe, ~16.92 °C at temperate steppe, and ~15.03 °C at meadow. The six models explained approximately 50–80% of the variabilities of ecosystem respiration during the study period. Both soil temperature and soil moisture played considerable roles in simulating ecosystem respiration with R square, ranging from 0.5 to 0.8. The Martin model performed better than the other models, with a relatively high R square, i.e., R 2 = 0.68 at shrubland, R 2 = 0.57 at dry steppe, R 2 = 0.74 at temperate steppe, and R 2 = 0.81 at meadow. These models achieved good performance for around 50–80% of the simulations. No single model performs best for all four grassland types, while each model appears suitable for at least one type of ecosystem. Models that oil moisture include models, especially the Martin model, are more suitable for the accurate prediction of ecosystem respiration than Ts-only models for the four grassland ecosystems.
Suggested Citation
Huimin Zou & Jiquan Chen & Changliang Shao & Gang Dong & Meihui Duan & Qingsong Zhu & Xianglan Li, 2022.
"Model Selection for Ecosystem Respiration Needs to Be Site Specific: Lessons from Grasslands on the Mongolian Plateau,"
Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:87-:d:719014
Download full text from publisher
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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:87-:d:719014. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.