Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.252 IF 4.252
  • IF 5-year value: 4.890 IF 5-year 4.890
  • CiteScore value: 4.49 CiteScore 4.49
  • SNIP value: 1.539 SNIP 1.539
  • SJR value: 2.404 SJR 2.404
  • IPP value: 4.28 IPP 4.28
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 51 Scimago H index 51
Volume 8, issue 2
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 295-316, 2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-295-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 295-316, 2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-295-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Development and technical paper 13 Feb 2015

Development and technical paper | 13 Feb 2015

Multi-site evaluation of the JULES land surface model using global and local data

D. Slevin, S. F. B. Tett, and M. Williams D. Slevin et al.
  • School of Geosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Grant Institute, James Hutton Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3FE, UK

Abstract. This study evaluates the ability of the JULES land surface model (LSM) to simulate photosynthesis using local and global data sets at 12 FLUXNET sites. Model parameters include site-specific (local) values for each flux tower site and the default parameters used in the Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model (HadGEM) climate model. Firstly, gross primary productivity (GPP) estimates from driving JULES with data derived from local site measurements were compared to observations from the FLUXNET network. When using local data, the model is biased with total annual GPP underestimated by 16% across all sites compared to observations. Secondly, GPP estimates from driving JULES with data derived from global parameter and atmospheric reanalysis (on scales of 100 km or so) were compared to FLUXNET observations. It was found that model performance decreases further, with total annual GPP underestimated by 30% across all sites compared to observations. When JULES was driven using local parameters and global meteorological data, it was shown that global data could be used in place of FLUXNET data with a 7% reduction in total annual simulated GPP. Thirdly, the global meteorological data sets, WFDEI and PRINCETON, were compared to local data to find that the WFDEI data set more closely matches the local meteorological measurements (FLUXNET). Finally, the JULES phenology model was tested by comparing results from simulations using the default phenology model to those forced with the remote sensing product MODIS leaf area index (LAI). Forcing the model with daily satellite LAI results in only small improvements in predicted GPP at a small number of sites, compared to using the default phenology model.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Share