Biogeochemical Modelling vs. Tree-Ring Measurements - Comparison of Growth Dynamic Estimates at Two Distinct Oak Forests in Croatia

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Biogeochemical process‑based models use a mathematical representation of physical processes with the aim of simulating and predicting past or future state of ecosystems (e.g. forests). Such models, usually executed as computer programs, rely on environmental variables as drivers, hence they can be used in studies of expected changes in environmental conditions. Process‑based models are continuously developed and improved with new scientific findings and newly available datasets. In the case of forests, long-term tree chronologies, either from monitoring or from tree-ring data, offer valuable means for testing modelling results. Information from different tree cores can cover a wide range of ecological and meteorological conditions and as such provide satisfactory temporal and spatial resolution to be used for model testing and improvement. Materials and Methods: In our research, we used tree-ring data as a ground truth to test the performance of Biome-BGCMuSo (BBGCMuSo) model in two distinct pedunculate oak forest areas, Kupa River Basin (called Pokupsko Basin) and Spacva River Basin, corresponding to a wetter and a drier site, respectively. Comparison of growth estimates from two different data sources was performed by estimating the dynamics of standardized basal area increment (BAI) from tree-ring data and standardized net primary productivity of stem wood (NPPw) from BBGCMuSo model. The estimated growth dynamics during 2000-2014 were discussed regarding the site-specific conditions and the observed meteorology. Results: The results showed similar growth dynamic obtained from the model at both investigated locations, although growth estimates from tree-ring data revealed differences between wetter and drier environment. This indicates higher model sensitivity to meteorology (positive temperature anomalies and negative precipitation anomalies during vegetation period) than to site-specific conditions (groundwater, soil type). At both locations, Pokupsko and Spacva, BBGCMuSo showed poor predictive power in capturing the dynamics obtained from tree‑ring data. Conclusions: BBGCMuSo model, similar to other process-based models, is primarily driven by meteorology, although site-specific conditions are an important factor affecting lowland oak forests’ growth dynamics. When possible, groundwater information should be included in the modelling of lowland oak forests in order to obtain better predictions. The observed discrepancies between measured and modelled data indicate that fixed carbon allocation, currently implemented in the model, fails in predicting growth dynamics of NPP. Dynamic carbon allocation routine should be implemented in the model to better capture tree stress response and growth dynamics.