Search for: All records

Abstract Ecosystem models offer a rigorous way to formalize scientific theories and are critical to evaluating complex interactions among ecological and biogeochemical processes. In addition to simulation and prediction, ecosystem models are a valuable tool for testing hypotheses about mechanisms and empirical findings because they reveal critical internal processes that are difficult to observe directly.However, many ecosystem models are difficult to manage and apply by scientists who lack advanced computing skills due to complex model structures, lack of consistent documentation, and low-level programming implementation, which facilitates computing but reduces accessibility.Here, we present the ‘pnetr’ R package, which is designed to provide an easy-to-manage ecosystem modeling framework and detailed documentation in both model structure and programming. The framework implements a family of widely used PnET (net photosynthesis, evapotranspiration) ecosystem models, which are relatively parsimonious but capture essential biogeochemical cycles of water, carbon, and nutrients. We chose the R programming language since it is familiar to many ecologists and has abundant statistical modeling resources. We showcase examples of model simulations and test the effects of phenology on carbon assimilation and wood production using data measured by the Environmental Measurement Station (EMS) eddy-covariance flux tower at Harvard Forest, MA.We hope ‘pnetr’ can facilitate further development of ecological theory and increase the accessibility of ecosystem modeling and ecological forecasting. 

ABSTRACT BackgroundClimate‐change‐induced shifts in the timing of leaf emergence during spring have been widely documented and have important ecological consequences. However, mechanistic knowledge regarding what controls the timing of spring leaf emergence is incomplete. Field‐based studies under natural conditions suggest that climate‐warming‐induced decreases in cold temperature accumulation (chilling) have expanded the dormancy duration or reduced the sensitivity of plants to warming temperatures (thermal forcing) during spring, thereby slowing the rate at which the timing of leaf emergence is shifting earlier in response to ongoing climate change. However, recent studies have argued that the apparent reductions in temperature sensitivity may arise from artefacts in the way that temperature sensitivity is calculated, while other studies based on statistical and mechanistic models specifically designed to quantify the role of chilling have shown conflicting results. MethodsWe analysed four commonly used combinations of phenology and temperature datasets obtained from remote sensing and ground observations to elucidate whether current model‐based approaches robustly quantify how chilling, in concert with thermal forcing, controls the timing of leaf emergence during spring under current climate conditions. ResultsWe show that widely used modeling approaches that are calibrated using field‐based observations misspecify the role of chilling under current climate conditions as a result of statistical artefacts inherent to the way that chilling is parameterised. Our results highlight the limitations of existing modelling approaches and observational data in quantifying how chilling affects the timing of spring leaf emergence and suggest that decreasing chilling arising from climate warming may not constrain near‐future shifts towards earlier leaf emergence in extra‐tropical ecosystems worldwide.