The PILPS-C1 experimentThe PILPS-C1 experiment

• Results of the first phase of the project

• Complementary simulation to be done

• Proposition for the future

Summary of the first phase of the projectSummary of the first phase of the project

Comparison of both « biophysical » and « biogeochemical » flux fromDifferent types of models with observations at one EUROFLUX site:Loobos

The site:The site:-Temperate « mature(100 years)  » coniferous forest-Climate: 700 mm precipitation , 9.8 °C mean temperature- Planted on a sand no soil carbon at the beginning of the plantation- Measured fluxes: NEE, LE,H, Rn- Meteorological parameters: incoming SW rad., precipitation, temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, pressure-Period covered: 1997-1998

Models:Models: Including SVAT with and without carbon cycle

Proposed simulations:Free equilibrium simulations:-Models are run until equilibrium of state variables using years 1997-1998« in loop »Free 100 years run:-simulation of « realistic scenario »: Beginning with a soil with no Carbon, the models are run for 1906 (plantation of the forest) to 1998Using observed climate.Constrained equilibrium simulations:Same as free equilibrium but with calibrations of parameters(simulation delayed…)

The participants of the projectThe participants of the project

Participants List N° Model contact Organization

1 SWAP Yeugeniy Gusev Olga Nasonova

Laboratory of Soil Water Physics,Institute of Water Problems Russian academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia

2 VISA Zong-Liang Yang/Guo-yue Niu

The Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 ,USA

3 CLASS-MCM/CLASS-UA/CLASS-MSC

Diana Verseghy Canadian Meteorological Service

4 IBIS Mustapha El Maayar Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment ,Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison

5 ISBA/ISBA-Ags Jean Chrisophe Calvet/Christophe Rivalland

Centre National de la Recheche Météorologique, Toulouse France

6 SPONSOR Andray Shmakin Laboratory of Climatology Russia

7 SWAPS-C Herbert ter Maat Alterra Green world project

8 AVIM Jinjun Ji/Mei Huang Institute of Geographical Science and Natural Resource Research/ Institute of Atmospheric Physics

9 MC1/BIOMAP Dominique Bachelet Dept of Bioresource Engineering Oregon state university

10 CSIRO-EK Eva Kowalczyk CSIRO Atmospheric Research Aspendale, Australia

11 CSIRO-GA Gabriel Abramowitz Department of Physical Geography, Macquarie University, North Ryde NSW 2109 Australia

12 ORCHIDEE Nicolas Viovy IPSL/LSCE, Paris, France

The workshop was held from May 6-7 2003 at CNRS center in Gif-sur-Yvette, France. Support for the workshop was provided by CNRS/INSU.  The participants of the workshop where: Jean Christophe Calvet (CNRM, France), Yeugeniy Gusev (Institute of Water Problems, Russia), Mustapha El Mayaar (Univ. Wisconsin,USA) Eddy Moors (Alterra, Netherlands), Olga Nasanova (Institute of Water Problems, Russia), Jan Polcher (LMD, France), Vincent Rivalland (CNRM, France), Andrey Shmakin (Institute of Geography, Russia), Diana Verseghy (CCS, Canada), Nicolas Viovy (LSCE,France) 

PILPSC1 workshop

Main resultsMain results

« free equilibrium simulation »

Analysis on diurnal cycle, daily and monthly average

For each models:

• Plots of mean diurnal cycles over 10 days• Plots of mean seasonal diurnal cycles• Plots of daily and monthly means• Plots of monthly model v.s data

Global statistics:• intercept v.s. Slope• RMSE sys v.s. non systematic:• The RMSE systematic indicate « bias » in the model• The RMSE non-systematic is the residue of the RMSE• Index of agreement: Global measurement of agreement between• model an observation.

Slope/intercept and RMSE unsys/sysFor the different models

(3 hourly fluxes)

Index of agreement for all models

« 100 years simulation »

Same as for F-E run plus:• Comparison of sinks simulated and observed for 1997 and 1998• Trajectories of several parameters for the 93 years of the run:- NEE- GPP- NPP- Total soil carbon- Total living biomass- biomass increment

Modeled and simulated carbon net sink In 1997 and 1998

CLASS-MCM CLASS-UAORCHIDEE-1 ORCHIDEE-2SWAP IBIS

Annual NEE (Kg C m-2 y-1)

MC AVIM

CLASS-MCM CLASS-UAORCHIDEE-1 ORCHIDEE-2IBIS

Annual GPP (Kg C m-2 y-1)

2 kind of behaviors:IBIS of ORCHIDEE-1 that reach rapidly the NPP (beginning with High sink)CLASS or SWAP with progressive increase of NPP (with increasing sink)MC or ORCHIDEE-2 is between the two.

CLASS-MCM CLASS-UAORCHIDEE-1 ORCHIDEE-2SWAPIBIS

VISA

Total living biomass (Kg C/m-2)

MCAVIM

CLASS-MCM CLASS-UAORCHIDEE-1 ORCHIDEE-2SWAPIBIS

VISA

Total Soil carbon (Kg C/m-2)

MCAVIM

Completion of the first phaseCompletion of the first phase

New model outputs will be added

e.g: LAI, separation between below and aboveBiomass, height of trees.....

Calibrated simulations with:

LAI (trees, understorey(seasonal cycle)•Maximun unstressed assimilation •Root zone depth•Water table depth•Height of trees (height of « first branches »)•Litter layer•Soil carbon (to check if we can informations about partition between pools)•Soil water content •Soil temperature 

(end of 2003...)

Some new analysisSeparation between night/day cloudy/clear warm/coldEstimation of WUERatio NEE/total respiration.

Main preliminary conclusion

Taking into account that models was not calibratedThe models reproduce relatively well the observations

Sensible heat flux is overestimated at nightHigh net CO2 and latent heat fluxes are underestimated

The 100 years simulation was very interestingSince if all models give relatively similar NEEAnd are all able to reproduce the difference ofSink between 1997 and 1998, trajectories ofModels carbon fluxes and pools are very different !

For more details on results go to:http://www.pilpsc1.cnrs-gif.fr