Second CAMELS consortium Meeting held at
Lisbon, Portugal on 19th March 2003.
Present: Met Office:
Friedlingstein, Philippe Peylin, Andrew Friend, Roger Dargaville,
MPI-BGC: Wolfgang Knorr, Jens Kattge, Manuel Gloor, Christian Rodenbeck
ALTERRA: Isabel van der Wyngaert, Mart-Jan Schelhaas
UNITUS: Dario Papale, Michele Meroni
EFI: Ari Pussinen, Sergey Zudin
CEH: Chris Huntingford
JRC: Nadine Gobron, Bernard Pinty
EC: Claus Bruning
MPI-MET: Marko Scholze
Betts, Venkata Jogireedy (Met Office), Riccardo Valentini (UNITUS),
Philippe Ciais (LSCE), Richard Harding
(CEH), Martin Heimann (MPI-BGC),
Ronald Hutjes (ALTERRA), Thomas Kaminski
Michel Verstraete (JRC).
Date of next meeting:
The Netherlands, Oct or Nov 2003 (see action 2(d))
1. Actions from previous meeting (29/1/03):
a) PF to find out more about the Hyde land-use
database and its relationship to what is planned in C4MIP.
PF presented the methodology which has been adopted by Richard Betts
(RB) to derive historical land-cover datasets for use within C4MIP. This
involves combining two datasets:
Ramankutty and Foley (1999), fraction of cropland on
a 0.5o grid, annually for 1700-1990
Hyde dataset (Goldewijk, 2000), pasture and cropland
(ON/OFF) on a 0.5o grid, every 50 years.
RBs algorithm has been used to derive annual fractions of pasture and
crop from 1700 to 1990.
ACTION 2(a): RB to extend his methodology to year 2000 using
b) NG to circulate questions concerning requirements
for remote-sensing products (see item 2f)
c) ALL to respond to JRC questions concerning
requirements for remote-sensing products (see item
Responses were not given, but the relevant decisions regarding the
required remote-sensing products were made under item 2f of the agenda.
d) WK, PF, G-JN to agree on distribution of inventory
work between WP2 and WP3 (see item 4)
AP sent around a document describing the role of EFI which was
accepted. EFI split between WP2 and WP3 is therefore as in the
Description of Work.
e) JK to send round revised questionnaire including
questions on requirements with respect to uncertainty estimates on flux
f) ALL MODELLING GROUPS to reply to questionnaire on
data requirements (see item
Late input on MOSES needs to be included.
g) RoH to suggest appropriate flux sites for WP2 (see
item 3) ACTION SUPERCEDED
It was decided to adopt the 31 sites used for validation of ORCHIDEE as
a first step (see item 2b)
h) PMC to decide on appropriate host for website and
ensure this is set up.
A webserver is now being set up at the Met Office to host the CAMELS
website. The intention is to purchase an appropriate web address
(most likely camels.org.uk since camels.org is already taken by a
i) ALL presenters to send their presentations to PMC
for inclusion on the website.
Only ALTERRA provided their presentation
from the 1st meeting, so this action is
ongoing and applies to both the 1st and
the 2nd meetings.
2. Description of Land-surface models to be
used in WP2, and associated data requirements.
a) BETHY (MPI-BGC)
WK described BETHY. Data requirements include leaf growth and decay
(for a new and revised phenology scheme). BETHY runs offline using maps
of temperature, rainfall, solar radiation (from ISLSCP) and estimates of
leaf nitrogen content. The vegetation parameters are estimated from the
literature, and with error bars. Such parameters include a growth
respiration constant, leaf onset and leaf shedding temperatures, LAI of
closed canopy, rooting depth. It was noted that model form and
parameterizations of soil water limitation behaviour is highly dependent
upon the computation of soil moisture content.
There was some discussion of the urgent need to define a priori
estimates of uncertainties in internal model parameters, based on
ACTION 2(b): ALL MODELLING GROUPS to provide estimates of
uncertainties, plus relevant citable literature, for their own internal
ACTION 2(c): AF to provide references to literature searches completed
for BIOME-BGC and ECOCRAFT.
ACTION 2(d): PF to arrange meeting of WP2 modelling groups, in Paris in
late-April to discuss parameter uncertainties.
b) ORCHIDEE (LSCE)
PF described ORCHIDEE, which consists of a new land-surface scheme
(STOMATE) coupled to the LPJ vegetation dynamics module. It is possible
to run with vegetation structural change (i.e. change in LAI and canopy
height), even if the vegetation dynamics is switched-off. ORCHIDEE
validates impressively against data from 31 sites, even in the absence
of calibration. As with other land-surface models there is a tendency to
fit latent heat fluxes more closely than sensible fluxes. There was some
discussion about the relative accuracy of H and LE eddy covariance
measurements, but this was inconclusive. Further guidance is required
from those running flux sites (see item 3a).
c) MOSES2/TRIFFID (Met Office)
PC described the MOSES 2 land-surface scheme and the TRIFFID dynamic
vegetation model. MOSES 2 calculates the surface heat, water and CO2
fluxes on each atmospheric model timestep (typically 30 minutes), for
each of up to 9 surface types (including 5 PFTs) in each gridbox. Carbon
fluxes and leaf turnover rates are aggregated before being passed to
TRIFFID, which updates the fraction of each PFT based on Lotka-type
competition equations. Changes in vegetation structure and type are
therefore intricately-linked. There was some discussion of whether
vegetation dynamics need to be included in the historical simulations of
WP3. PC felt that age-class distributions need to be treated to deal
with the impacts of historical land-use change on the carbon budget.
d) Forest Inventory Model (EFI)
This was dealt with under agenda item 4.
e) Summary of responses to questionnaire on
models (Jen Kattge, MPI-BGC)
JK presented the results of his questionnaire on the data requirements
for the land-surface models to be used in WP2. It was noted that these
seemed to be similar and therefore compatible. PC pointed out that his
inputs on MOSES data requirements had not made it into the table
presented (probably because they were provided so late!). There was
still a need for estimates of measurement error for WP2, which requires
input from those running flux sites (see agenda item 4a).
f) Summary of responses to questionnaire on
requirements for data from remote sensing (Nadine Gabron, JRC)
NG described the questionnaire and the remote-sensing data which is
potentially available. Although, no responses to the questionnaire had
been received, the following requirements were specified after
Global, monthly FAPAR at 10km resolution (plus
latitude-longitude equivalent) for the longest period possible (Sep
Site, 10 day FAPAR for the 31 flux sites to be used
in the WP2 model experiments.
ACTION 2(e): JRC to produce global, monthly FAPAR at 10km resolution,
plus a latitude-longitude equivalent.
ACTION 2(f): JRC to circulate CarboEurope flux sites for which FAPAR is
3. Selection of appropriate measurement sites to be
used in WP2
a) Description of possible sites (ALTERRA)
It is was decided to use the 31 sites already prepared for validation
of ORCHIDEE. Discussion focussed on ancilliary data requirements and
estimates of measurement errors. It was decided that initial WP2
modelling should focus on the most completely measured sites, including
estimates of LAI, soil temperature and soil moisture where possible.
ACTION 2(g): PC to approach the LSCE guardian of the processed flux
data, and ask for permission to use this within CAMELS
ACTION 2(h): PF to circulate a description of the 31 sites
ACTION 2(i): ALTERRA to assess the availability of ground-based LAI for
the 31 sites.
In order to provoke estimates of measurement errors from those running
flux sites it was decided to produce rough estimates from within CAMELS
and then send these to the coordinators of each site for correction
ACTION 2(j): JK to circulate the questionnaire on measurement errors to
the CAMELS data experts (ALTERRA, CEH, UNITUS), and collate the
ACTION 2(k): ALTERRA to send the estimated errors to flux site
coordinators for comment!
b) Site recommendations based on experiences with
ORCHIDEE (Diego Santaren, LSCE)
DS described his experiences with calibration of ORCHIDEE. Since the
model did a good job at most sites even using its default parameters, it
was quite difficult to make further improvements. However, the tuning
algorithm was demonstrated to be taking the model in the right direction
(i.e. towards a better fit to the data)
c) Site recommendations based on experiences with
This item was cancelled due to time constraints.
4. Discussion on the role of Forest Inventory
work within CAMELS (to be led by EFI).
The note circulated on the EFI role in CAMELS was agreed to.
AP described the EFI role in CAMELS and the CarboInvent FP5 project. It
was hoped that there would be significant symbiosis between these
efforts. The key first task for EFI in CAMELS is to locate and
distribute information on historical disturbance for as many of the 31
flux sites as possible;
ACTION 2(l): EFI to distribute information on subsets of the 31 flux
sites where age-classes and/or historical disturbances are known.
5. Summary of actions (PMC)
See separate document
PC explained that CAMELS was being presented as a key part of the
Integration component of the CarboEurope Integrated Project to be
submitted to FP6.
7. Date and location of next meeting
April 2003, Paris, WP2 discussion of uncertainties
in internal model parameters (see action 2(d)).
October or November 2003, The Netherlands
ACTION 2(m): ALTERRA to arrange next consortium meeting in The
October or November 2003.