Accessibility navigation


A machine learning framework to evaluate vegetation modeling in Earth system models

Swaminathan, R. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5853-2673, Quaife, T. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6896-4613 and Allan, R. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0264-9447 (2024) A machine learning framework to evaluate vegetation modeling in Earth system models. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 16 (7). e2023MS004097. ISSN 1942-2466

[img]
Preview
Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

3MB
[img] Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.

5MB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1029/2023MS004097

Abstract/Summary

Vegetation gross primary productivity (GPP) is the single largest carbon flux of the terrestrial biosphere which, in turn, is responsible for sequestering 25%–30% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The ability to model GPP is therefore critical for calculating carbon budgets as well as understanding climate feedbacks. Earth system models (ESMs) have the capability to simulate GPP but vary greatly in their individual estimates, resulting in large uncertainties. We describe a machine learning (ML) approach to investigate two key factors responsible for differences in simulated GPP quantities from ESMs: the relative importance of different atmospheric drivers and differences in the representation of land surface processes. We describe the different steps in the development of our interpretable ML framework including the choice of algorithms, parameter tuning, training and evaluation. Our results show that ESMs largely agree on the physical climate drivers responsible for GPP as seen in the literature, for instance drought variables in the Mediterranean region or radiation and temperature in the Arctic region. However differences do exist since models don't necessarily agree on which individual variable is most relevant for GPP. We also explore a distance measure to attribute GPP differences to climate influences versus process differences and provide examples for where our methods work (South Asia, Mediterranean) and where they are inconclusive (Eastern North America).

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO)
Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > Department of Meteorology
ID Code:117412
Publisher:American Geophysical Union

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation