Forest Eco-Physiological Models: Water Use and Carbon Sequestration

  • D. Nadal-SalaEmail author
  • T. F. Keenan
  • S. Sabaté
  • C. Gracia
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 34)


Modeling and monitoring the processes involved in terrestrial carbon sequestration are often thought to be independent events. In fact, rigorously validated modern modeling techniques are very useful tools in the monitoring of the carbon sequestration potential of an ecosystem through simulation, by highlighting key areas for study of what is a complex dynamical system. This is ever more important in the light of climate change, where it becomes essential to have an understanding of the future role of terrestrial ecosystems as potential sinks or sources in the global carbon cycle, as well as the feedback and trade-off mechanisms between climate change and ecosystem carbon balances.


Gross Primary Production National Forest Inventory Ecosystem Service Supply Soil Organic Matter Decomposition Maintenance Respiration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was funded by the European Commission via a Marie Curie Excellence Grant through GREENCYCLES, the Marie-Curie Biogeochemistry and Climate Change Research and Training Network (MRTN-CT-2004-512464) supported by the European Commissions Sixth Framework program for Earth System Science, by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad via a FP1 grant through MEDSOUL project (CGL2014-59977-C3-1-R). This research was also funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad MED-FORESTREAM (CGL2011-30590). Data was supplied by the ALARM project (Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods, GOCE-CT-2003-506675), from the EU Fifth Framework for Energy, environment and sustainable development. Invaluable assistance was also provided by Eduard Pla, and Jordi Vayreda.


  1. Bonan G (2002) Ecological climatology – concepts and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Box G (1979) Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Launer RL and Wilkinson GN (eds), Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press New York, pp. 201–236Google Scholar
  3. Campbell GS (1986) Extinction coefficients for radiation in plan canopies calculated using an ellipsoidal inclination angle distribution. Agric For Meteorol 36:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox PM (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:184–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang C, Smith P, Moncrieff J, Smith J (2005) Similar responses of labile and resistant organic matter pools to changes in temperature. Nature 433:57–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Farquhar GD, Von Caemmerer S (1982) Modeling of photosynthetic response to environment. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology: physiological plant ecology II, water relations and carbon assimilation, vol 12B. Springer, Berlin, pp. 549–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fontes L, Bontemps J-D, Bugmann H, Van Oijen M, Gracia C, Kramer K, Lindner M, Rötzer T, Skovsgaard JP (2010) Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. For Syst 19:8–29Google Scholar
  8. Gates DM (1962) Leaf temperature and energy exchange. Theor Appl Climatol 12:321–336Google Scholar
  9. Gates DM (1980) Biophysical Ecology. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gracia CA, Tello E, Sabate S, Bellot J (1999) GOTILWA+: an integrated model of water dynamics and forest growth. Eecology of mediterranean evergreen Oak forests. In: Rodà F, Retana J, Bellot J, CA G (eds) Ecology of mediterranean evergreen oak forests. Springer, Berlin, pp. 163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2007) Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel in climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Janssens IA, Freibauer A, Schlamadinger B, Ceulemans R, Ciais P, Dolman AJ, Heimann M, Nabuurs GJ, Smith P, Valentini R, Schultz ED (2005) The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems at the country scale – a European case study. Biogeosciences 2:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1986) Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Adv Ecol Res 15:1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kellomaki T, Valmari A (2005) Method for analysing the performance of certain testing techniques for concurrent systems. Fifth international conference on the application of concurrency to system design, proceedings, pp 154–163Google Scholar
  16. Keenan T, Niinemets Ü, Sabate S et al (2009a) Process based inventory of isoprenoid emissions: current knowledge, future prospects and uncertainties. Atmos Chem Phys 9:4053–4076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keenan T, Niinemets Ü, Sabate S et al (2009b) Seasonality of monoterpene emission potentials in Quercus ilex and Pinus pinea: implications for regional VOC emissions modeling. J Geophys Res 114:D22202. doi: 10.1029/2009JD011904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keenan T, Sabaté S, Gracia C (2010) Soil water stress and coupled photosynthesis–conductance models: bridging the gap between conflicting reports on the relative roles of stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis. Agric For Meteorol 150:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keenan T, Maria SJ, Lloret F, Ninyerola M, Sabate S (2011) Predicting the future of forests in the mediterranean under climate change, with niche and process-based models: CO2 matters! Glob Chang Biol 1:565–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koppen, W. (1936). Das geographische System der Klimate. In: Koppen w and Geiger R (eds) Handbuch der Klimatologie, 5, Gedbruder Borntrager, 110–152Google Scholar
  21. Kramer K, Leinonen I, Bartelink HH, Berbigier P, Borghetti M, Bernhofer CH, Cienciala E, Dolman AJ, Froer O, Gracia CA, Granier A, Grunwald T, Hari P, Jans W, Kellomaki S, Loustau D, Magnani F, Matteucci G, Mohren GMJ, Moors E, Nissinen A, Peltola H, Sabate S, Sanchez A, Sontag M, Valentini R, Vesala T (2002) Evaluation of 6 process-based forest growth models using eddy-covariance measurements of CO2 and H2O fluxes at six forest sites in Europe. Glob Chang Biol 8:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leuning R (1995) A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal–photosynthesis model for C3 plants. Plant Cell Environ 18:339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monteith JL (1965) Evaporation and environment. Symp Soc Exp Biol 19:205–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Morales P, Sykes MT, Prentice IC, Smith P, Smith B, Bugmann H, Zierl B, Friedlingstein P, Viovy N, Sabaté S, Sánchez A, Pla E, Gracia CA, Sitch S, Arneth A, Ogee J (2005) Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. Glob Chang Biol 11:2211–2233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nadal-Sala D, Sabaté S, Gracia C (2014) Gotilwa+: Un modelo que evalúa los efectos del cambio climático en los bosques y explora alternativas de gestión para su mitigación. Ecosistemas 22:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ninyerola M, Pons X, Roure JM (2007a) Objective air temperature mapping for the Iberian Peninsula using spatial interpolation and GIS. Int J Climatol 27:1231–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ninyerola M, Pons X, Roure JM (2007b) Monthly precipitation mapping of the Iberian Peninsula using spatial interpolation tools implemented in a Geographic Information System. Theor Appl Climatol 89:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ovington JD (1961) Some aspects of energy flow in plantations of Pinus sylvestris L. Ann Bot 25:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan Y et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice C et al (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310:1333–1337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Serra-Diaz JM, Keenan TF, Ninyerola M, Sabaté S, Gracia C, Lloret F (2013) Geographical patterns of congruence and incongruence between correlative species distribution models and a process-based ecophysiological growth model. J Biogeogr 40:1928–1938Google Scholar
  32. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi H, Kira T (1964) A quantitative analysis of plant form – the pipe model theory. I Basic Anal Jpn J Ecol 14:97–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Nadal-Sala
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. F. Keenan
    • 2
  • S. Sabaté
    • 3
  • C. Gracia
    • 3
  1. 1.Ecology DepartmentUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Lawrence Berkeley National LabBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Ecology DepartmentUniversity of Barcelona and CREAF researcherBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations