001     21346
005     20200705144232.0
024 7 _ |2 DOI
|a 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.004
024 7 _ |2 WOS
|a WOS:000304217500004
024 7 _ |a altmetric:21808136
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a PreJuSER-21346
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 690
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Engineering, Environmental
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Environmental Sciences
100 1 _ |a Palosuo, T.
|b 0
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
245 _ _ |a A multi-model comparison of soil carbon assessment of a coniferous forest stand
260 _ _ |a Amsterdam [u.a.]
|b Elsevier Science
|c 2012
300 _ _ |a 38 - 49
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
440 _ 0 |a Environmental Modelling and Software
|x 1364-8152
|0 13262
|v 35
500 _ _ |3 POF3_Assignment on 2016-02-29
500 _ _ |a 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.
520 _ _ |a 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.
536 _ _ |a Terrestrische Umwelt
|c P24
|2 G:(DE-HGF)
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to Web of Science
650 _ 7 |a J
|2 WoSType
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Carbon balance
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Forest
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Model comparison
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Soil carbon
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Simulation model
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Uncertainty
700 1 _ |a Foereid, B.
|b 1
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Svensson, M.
|b 2
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Shurpali, N.
|b 3
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Lehtonen, A.
|b 4
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Herbst, M.
|b 5
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129469
700 1 _ |a Linkosalo, T.
|b 6
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Ortiz, C.
|b 7
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Todorovic, G.R.
|b 8
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Marcinkonis, S.
|b 9
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Li, C.S.
|b 10
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
700 1 _ |a Jandl, R.
|b 11
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
773 _ _ |a 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.004
|g Vol. 35, p. 38 - 49
|p 38 - 49
|q 35<38 - 49
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2027304-6
|t Environmental modelling & software
|v 35
|y 2012
|x 1364-8152
856 7 _ |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.004
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:21346
|p VDB
|p VDB:Earth_Environment
913 1 _ |b Erde und Umwelt
|k P24
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-240
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-200
|v Terrestrische Umwelt
|x 0
913 2 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Marine, Küsten- und Polare Systeme
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-259H
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200
|v Addenda
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2012
915 _ _ |a JCR/ISI refereed
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0010
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1060
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
920 1 _ |k IBG-3
|l Agrosphäre
|g IBG
|0 I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
|x 0
970 _ _ |a VDB:(DE-Juel1)137331
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a ConvertedRecord
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21