最新科研进展
The Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), phase 1: Experimental and analytical protocols with detailed model descriptions
Authors:
Sam S. Rabin1,2, Joe R. Melton3, Gitta Lasslop4, Dominique Bachelet5,6, Matthew Forrest7, Stijn Hantson2, Jed Kaplan8, Fang Li9, Stéphane Mangeon10, Daniel S. Ward11, Chao Yue12, Vivek K. Arora13, Thomas Hickler7,14, Silvia Kloster4, Wolfgang Knorr15, Lars Nieradzik16,17, Allan Spessa18, Gerd A. Folberth19, Tim Sheehan6, Apostolos Voulgarakis10, Douglas I. Kelley20, I. Colin Prentice21,22, Stephen Sitch23, Sandy Harrison24, and Almut Arneth2
1 Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 3 Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada, 4 Land in the Earth System, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrasse 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany, 5 Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA, 6 Conservation Biology Institute, 136 SW Washington Ave., Suite 202, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA, 7 Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Institute (BiK-F), Senckenberganlage 25,60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 8 Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, 4414 Géopolis Building, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, 9 International Center for Climate and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 10 Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, UK, 11 Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, 12 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 13 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada, 14 Department of Physical Geography, Goethe-University, Altenh？ferallee 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 15 Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden, 16 Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden, 17 CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, P.O. Box 3023, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, 18 School of Environment, Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 19 UK Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK, 20 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, UK, 21 School of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia, 22 AXA Chair of Biosphere and Climate Impacts, Grand Challenges in Ecosystem and the Environment, Department of Life Sciences and Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK, 23 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK, 24 School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Sciences (SAGES), University of Reading, Reading, UK
Abstract:
The important role of fire in regulating vegetation community composition and contributions to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols make it a critical component of dynamic global vegetation models and Earth system models. Over 2 decades of development, a wide variety of model structures and mechanisms have been designed and incorporated into global fire models, which have been linked to different vegetation models. However, there has not yet been a systematic examination of how these different strategies contribute to model performance. Here we describe the structure of the first phase of the Fire Model Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), which for the first time seeks to systematically compare a number of models. By combining a standardized set of input data and model experiments with a rigorous comparison of model outputs to each other and to observations, we will improve the understanding of what drives vegetation fire, how it can best be simulated, and what new or improved observational data could allow better constraints on model behavior. In this paper, we introduce the fire models used in the first phase of FireMIP, the simulation protocols applied, and the benchmarking system used to evaluate the models. We have also created supplementary tables that describe, in thorough mathematical detail, the structure of each model.
Key words:
FireMIP, protocols
Citation:
Rabin, S. S., Melton, J. R., Lasslop, G., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Hantson, S., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Yue, C., Arora, V. K., Hickler, T., Kloster, S., Knorr, W., Nieradzik, L., Spessa, A., Folberth, G. A., Sheehan, T., Voulgarakis, A., Prentice, I. C., Sitch, S., Kaplan, J. O., Harrison, S., and Arneth, A.: The Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), phase 1: Experimental and analytical protocols, Geosci. Model Dev. ., 10, 2017.
