2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bayesian calibration of the nitrous oxide emission module of an agro-ecosystem model

Abstract: processes, which are modelled as the product of a potential rate with three dimensionless factors 10 related to soil water content, nitrogen content and temperature. These equations involve a total 11 set of 15 parameters, four of which are site-specific and should be measured on site, while the 12 other 11 are considered global, i.e. invariant over time and space. We first gathered prior informa- scales.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
60
1
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(86 reference statements)
4
60
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Bayesian calibration of PBMs relies on drawing a representative sample of parameter vectors from the parameter distribution, and this is generally carried out using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques (MCMC; Metropolis et al 1953). Bayesian calibration using MCMC has been applied to models for Norway spruce (Van Oijen et al 2005b), N 2 O-emitting fields of rapeseed, winter wheat and maize (Lehuger et al 2009) and the dynamics of soil under grassland during winter (Thorsen et al 2010). MCMC not only allows the use of complex models, such as PBMs, that are not analytically solvable, but it also allows uncertainties about parameters and measurements to be represented by the most appropriate probability distributions; there is no need to use standard distributions such as the multivariate normal.…”
Section: Cultivar-specific Parameter Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Bayesian calibration of PBMs relies on drawing a representative sample of parameter vectors from the parameter distribution, and this is generally carried out using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques (MCMC; Metropolis et al 1953). Bayesian calibration using MCMC has been applied to models for Norway spruce (Van Oijen et al 2005b), N 2 O-emitting fields of rapeseed, winter wheat and maize (Lehuger et al 2009) and the dynamics of soil under grassland during winter (Thorsen et al 2010). MCMC not only allows the use of complex models, such as PBMs, that are not analytically solvable, but it also allows uncertainties about parameters and measurements to be represented by the most appropriate probability distributions; there is no need to use standard distributions such as the multivariate normal.…”
Section: Cultivar-specific Parameter Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PBMs are more commonly parameterised site-specifically, even when multiple sites are examined in the same study (e.g. Lehuger et al 2009, but see Reinds et al 2008 Fig. 4 Yields (g m -2 ) for each of the six within-rotation harvests, averaged over all three-year long rotations that were simulated (1995-1997, 1998-2000, ..., 2010-2012).…”
Section: Bayesian Calibration Of a Pbm For Different Cultivarsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first is by liaising with research centres that are doing experiments to obtain direct measurements. A second, and shorterterm solution is to use models such as CERES-EGC (Lehuger et al, 2009;Rolland et al 2008) and feed these outputs to the GHG BN model to improve the accuracy of the current nodes in a similar way as with the agricultural data.…”
Section: Reliability Of the Data Used To Build The Model's Nodes Distmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to improve its accuracy, we implemented the NOE2 submodel (Bessou et al 2010b) in CERES-EGC and proceeded to a Bayesian calibration of the 22 parameters of NOE2. This calibration makes it possible to reduce significantly the spread in parameter distribution and the subsequent uncertainty on N 2 O emissions by updating these distributions against a priori probability distributions of parameter values gathered from other sites (Lehuger et al 2009). This calibration reduced the Root-Mean Square Error on daily and annual fluxes by 15% and 63% respectively when compared to the uncalibrated simulations ( Fig.…”
Section: Modelling Of Field Emissionsmentioning
confidence: 99%