% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Palosuo:21346,
author = {Palosuo, T. and Foereid, B. and Svensson, M. and Shurpali,
N. and Lehtonen, A. and Herbst, M. and Linkosalo, T. and
Ortiz, C. and Todorovic, G.R. and Marcinkonis, S. and Li,
C.S. and Jandl, R.},
title = {{A} multi-model comparison of soil carbon assessment of a
coniferous forest stand},
journal = {Environmental modelling $\&$ software},
volume = {35},
issn = {1364-8152},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {PreJuSER-21346},
pages = {38 - 49},
year = {2012},
note = {This study was initiated in a modelling workshop of COST639
in Vienna, Austria, in May 2009 and discussions were
continued in Vilnius in September 2009. T. Palosuo was
funded through the Agriyasso Research Project funded by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland and by MTT
strategic funds of the IAM-Tools and MITAG projects. We wish
to thank Reimund Rotter and three anonymous reviewers for
their insightful and constructive comments on the
manuscript.},
abstract = {We simulated soil carbon stock dynamics of an Austrian
coniferous forest stand with five soil-only models (Q,
ROMUL, RothC, SoilCO2/RothC and Yasso07) and three plant
soil models (CENTURY, Coup-Model and Forest-DNDC) for an
18-year period and the decomposition of a litter pulse over
a 100-year period. The objectives of the study were to
assess the consistency in soil carbon estimates applying a
multi-model comparison and to present and discuss the
sources of uncertainties that create the differences in
model results. Additionally, we discuss the applicability of
different modelling approaches from the view point of
large-scale carbon assessments.Our simulation results showed
a wide range in soil carbon stocks and stock change
estimates reflecting substantial uncertainties in model
estimates. The measured stock change estimate decreased much
more than the model predictions. Model results varied not
only due to the model structure and applied parameters, but
also due to different input information and assumptions
applied during the modelling processes. Initialization
procedures applied with the models induced large differences
among the modelled soil carbon stocks and stock change
estimates. Decomposition estimates of the litter pulse
driven by model structures and parameters also varied
considerably.Our results support the use of relatively
simple soil-only models with low data requirements in
inventory type of large-scale carbon assessments. It is
important that the modelling processes within the national
inventories are transparently reported and special emphasis
is put on how the models are used, which assumptions are
applied and what is the quality of data used both as input
and to calibrate the models. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {690},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications /
Engineering, Environmental / Environmental Sciences},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000304217500004},
doi = {10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.004},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/21346},
}