Table 1.
The values of Vcmax set in the IBIS model and the initial range of MCMC inversion.
Figure 1.
Comparison of predicted and measured GPP.
Comparison between gross primary production (GPP) estimated from Eddy Covariance (EC) measurements and GPP predicted from different model simulations: (a) IBIS, (b) EC-LUE and (c) IBIS-Type. The solid lines are the linear regression lines and the short dashed lines are the 1∶1 lines.
Figure 2.
Comparison among models for different PFTs.
Comparisons among IBIS, IBIS-Type and EC-LUE models for each plant functional type (PFT), where (a) and (b) are the results of R2 and RMSE, respectively. Lowercase letters above the bars indicate significant differences among models.
Table 2.
The performance of the IBIS model and the EC-LUE model.
Figure 3.
Comparison of Vcmax from the original scheme and the inversed Vcmax values.
Comparison of model Vcmax values with the inversed values of the IBIS-Type. Same letter on the top of the bar indicates no significant difference among biomes.
Figure 4.
The global pattern of annual vegetation gross primary production (GPP) from 2000 to 2006. (a) estimated GPP using the IBIS model, (b) estimated GPP using the EC-LUE model, (c) estimated GPP using the IBIS-Type model, (d) the difference between the IBIS and EC-LUE models and (e) the spatial distribution of plant functional types (PFTs).
Figure 5.
Interannual variability in GPP derived from different models.
Interannual variability in global mean gross primary production (GPP) derived from the IBIS, IBIS-Type and EC-LUE models.
Table 3.
The magnitude of gross primary production (GPP) in each plant functional type (PFT).
Figure 6.
Comparison of estimated and observed soil water.
Daily variation in the estimated soil water fraction of the IBIS model (i.e., fraction of soil pore space containing liquid water) and in the observed soil water content at EC sites. The solid lines represent simulation data, and the dotted lines represent the observed data.