Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20210011823

The Arctic-Boreal vulnerability experiment model benchmarking system

Eric Stofferahn·Joshua B Fisher·Daniel J Hayes·Christopher R Schwalm·Deborah N Huntzinger·Wouter Hantson·Benjamin Poulter·Zhen Zhang
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

NASA's Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) integrates field and airborne data into modeling and synthesis activities for understanding Arctic and Boreal ecosystem dynamics. The ABoVE Benchmarking System (ABS) is an operational software package to evaluate terrestrial biosphere models against key indicators of Arctic and Boreal ecosystem dynamics, i.e.: carbon biogeochemistry, vegetation, permafrost, hydrology, and disturbance. The ABS utilizes satellite remote sensing data, airborne data, and field data from ABoVE as well as collaborating research networks in the region, e.g.: the Permafrost Carbon Network, the International Soil Carbon Network, the Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database, AmeriFlux sites, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2, and the Soil Moisture Active Passive mission. The ABS is designed to be interactive for researchers interested in having their models accurately represent observations of key Arctic indicators: a user submits model results to the system, the system evaluates the model results against a set of Arctic-Boreal benchmarks outlined in the ABoVE Concise Experiment Plan, and the user then receives a quantitative scoring of model strengths and deficiencies through a web interface. This interactivity allows model developers to iteratively improve their model for the Arctic-Boreal Region by evaluating results from successive model versions. We show here, for illustration, the improvement of the Lund–Potsdam–Jena-Wald Schnee und Landschaft (LPJwsl) version model through the ABoVE ABS as a new permafrost module is coupled to the existing model framework. The ABS will continue to incorporate new benchmarks that address indicators of Arctic-Boreal ecosystem dynamics as they become available.

Explore related subjects

ABoVEbenchmarkingmodelArcticBorealecosystemcarbon

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Eric Stofferahn, Joshua B Fisher, Daniel J Hayes, Christopher R Schwalm, Deborah N Huntzinger, Wouter Hantson, Benjamin Poulter, Zhen Zhang. 2019-05-01. The Arctic-Boreal vulnerability experiment model benchmarking system. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210011823

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2026

Meta-analysis of North American Arctic and boreal aboveground biomass datasets: assessing accuracy, dynamics, and similarities

The North American arctic and boreal regions (ABRs) are rapidly warming and experiencing intensifying disturbances. Accurately quantifying aboveground biomass (AGB) is critical for understanding the impacts of these changes on the carbon cycle and for designing climate change mitigation strategies. Several AGB maps have been developed for the North American ABRs, including recent contributions from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) campaign. However, these maps differ widely in training data, methodology, and resulting AGB density estimates. Presently, a comprehensive comparative evaluation is lacking, making it difficult for users to select datasets suited to their research or management needs. Here, in this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of nine AGB density datasets across North American ABRs, specifically for Alaska and Canada. We (1) summarized AGB by ecoregion and Canadian provinces, (2) evaluated their accuracy against field-based measurements, (3) analyzed spatial and temporal similarities among datasets, and (4) assessed their ability to capture disturbance (fire and harvest) impacts on AGB. We found substantial variation in regional and local AGB estimates across datasets, with overall accuracy ranging from R 2 = 0.25–0.62 and Bias% from −47.8% to 69.9% when validated against field plots. Despite these differences, most datasets have comparatively consistent spatial patterns in AGB (r > 0.8 for most cases). In contrast, agreement on the temporal patterns of AGB change is generally low. We found datasets with spatial resolutions ⩽300 m are capable of capturing disturbance impacts on AGB dynamics, though sensitivity varies across products. Our findings and dataset summary provide guidance for selecting appropriate AGB datasets for different applications within our study area. Our analysis also highlights the need to decrease map bias and increase capability to detect temporal change to decrease uncertainty of AGB datasets potentially by using training data which is representative of major plant functional types within the mapped area.

ABoVE↗