the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Representing canopy structure dynamics within the LPJ-GUESS dynamic global vegetation model (revision 13221)
Abstract. The competition for light is a fundamental determinant of the structure and composition of a forest. Large-scale forest models must balance real-world complexity with computational demand and poorly constrained parameters. The LPJ-GUESS dynamic global vegetation model has a strong track record of simulating forest composition and tree demography with a simple representation of forest canopies. The current approach, however, is limited in its ability to explore functional co-existence of trees within forest patches or to represent the full implications of forest management actions which create heterogeneous light conditions on the forest floor. The current representation of forest canopy in LPJ-GUESS is based on vertically overlapping crowns with no horizontal structure. Whilst computationally efficient, this approach does not allow for a realistic representation of forest floor light distribution following tree death or harvest.
Here we describe the implementation of a new scheme with spatially explicit canopies, where tree cohorts have a fixed position within a patch, enabling more realistic simulation of forest floor light conditions, especially following disturbances such as tree death or harvest. Additionally, we introduce a lower-complexity model version based on a perfect plasticity-like approximation.
To evaluate these developments, we conduct four assessments. First, we evaluate the model's performance against field observations of aboveground woody biomass, mortality, and productivity across diameter size classes. Second, we examine the ability to represent tree functional co-existence. Third, we explore how forest harvest influence the re-establishment of a woody understory. Lastly, we conduct two sensitivity tests.
Results show that the spatially explicit canopy schemes improve representation of forest size structure and dynamics across boreal, temperate, and tropical regions. It also enables representation of functional co-existence without the influence of large-scale disturbances and captures the interplay of forest gap dynamics with the establishment of a recruitment layer, capabilities not achievable with the standard canopy approach.
These advances significantly enhance the model's capacity to explore forest management effects and functional co-existence, and improve its alignment with observational data. The new canopy schemes offer a more robust foundation for modelling forest dynamics under historical, current, and future environmental conditions.
- Preprint
(1844 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2995', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2025
This manuscript develops a new canopy structure scheme within the LPJ-GUESS model. The new scheme represents spatially explicit canopy (SEC) and is expected to better simulate vertical and horizontal light environment. The manuscript also compares how different canopy structure schemes influence model simulation results.
Horizontal/vertical heterogeneity is a long-term challenge in modeling canopy structure and its impact on ecosystem dynamics, especially with the adoption of explicit vegetation demography. Fisher et al. 2018 has listed different flavors of canopy structure representations. To me this study tries to mix spatially explicit gap models with spatially implicit dynamic global vegetation models. I am glad to see LPJ-GUESS, being an important global model, to advance in this realm. Please see below for my main concerns.
First of all, using spatially explicit structure generally requires running an ensemble of simulations/stands to reduce the impacts of spatial stochasticity, especially for stands/grids with no spatially explicit census data. It is unclear to me how the 'fixed positions' (line 145-155) were decided and whether/how ensemble was created. In addition, in this case, 'cohort' is not appropriate because it means the average state of trees with similar size/functional type by definition and should be spatially explicit. The scheme is basically modeling individuals (like the SEIB model). I would expect a model test to show simulations of a single stand with the same initial demography but different spatial assignments of 'cohort' positions.
Second, in addition to comparison in model dynamics, a critical comparison to me is the equilibrium vertical and spatial structure of simulated by different canopy structure assumptions (e.g. vertical LAI profile at stand-level, distribution of biomass/LAI across patches under the same disturbance regime). This can help us to understand how canopy structure assumptions modify long-term model simulations.Third, 'functional co-existence' seems to be a key motivation of this study. However, the definition or target of simulated functional co-existence is not clear to me. Do you just mean stable coexistence of two PFTs under equilibrium? Are there data to benchmark the degree of coexistence?
Some technical comments:
Line 10 "more realistic simulation of forest floor light conditions" --> I did not find any results/benchmarking on floor light conditions
Line 88-90, one other related process is light-driven trait plasticity. See recent studies in ELM-FATES and ED2 (Needham et al. 2025; Ma et al. 2025). Does LPJ-GUESS has trait plasticity within a PFT?
Needham, Jessica F., et al. "Vertical canopy gradients of respiration drive plant carbon budgets and leaf area index." New Phytologist 246.1 (2025): 144-157.
Ma, Yixin, et al. "Constraining light‐driven plasticity in leaf traits with observations improves the prediction of tropical forest demography, structure, and biomass dynamics." Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 130.6 (2025): e2025JG008814.
Line 99-100, this assumption might not be too biased as long as the patch size is assumed to be similar to crown size (say 25m by 25m for tropical forests) and patch dynamics was done correctly. See the ED modeling literature (e.g. Moorcroft et al. 2001 and the Fisher et al. 2016 review).Line 145, this equation seems to be confusing highly empirical to me. So a cohort with CA = half of CA_max would have a mort_self of 1 per year?
Line 150, what does z mean here? distance to the center? I am not sure what does 'border issues' mean here.
Line 190, this is related to my abovementioned comments on the definition of "cohort". Once going spatially explicit, the model is simulating individuals not cohorts.
Line 193-194, does the new SEC scheme consider solar angle? It would be a pity not to since this is one of the most important advantage of spatially explicit canopy structure.
Figure 3, I feel all site average of absolute biomass/growth is hard to interpret. I would suggest use a 3 by 3 figure show results for each biome and the appendix includes result for each site.
Figure 5, what does the green line mean in panel a and b mean?
Table 3, there are reported observed values from global scale to biome-specific scales right? (e.g. work by Brian Enquist etc.) It would be helpful to put the model simulation results into the context of observed self-thinning scaling.
Figure 6, again, a biome-specific comparison would be better.
Line 384, what is the key "observational data" to show the advantage of SEC? If only the RSME shown in Figure 8 and 9, SEC seems to perform similar or even slightly worse and PPL
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2995-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2995', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2025
This paper descripts a new crown organization scheme in LPJ-GUESS, spatially-explicit canopy (SEC), and tested its performance in comparison with its original scheme and PPA (Perfect Plasticity Approximation). This scheme is well-designed and worth to try, especially when the community is struggling in the ED (crown stretching) and PPA (crown sorting) schemes. The paper is well-written and fully tested the performance of this scheme. I just have some minor questions to ask the authors to clarify.
- Since it is “spatial explicit”, is there any shading effect among individuals/cohorts? With changes in the solar angles, the shades of trees can shade other trees and the calculation is pretty complicated. The crown stretching (original LPJ-GUESS and ED models) and crown sorting (PPA) schemes were used to skip these calculations.
- Co-existence mechanism is mentioned in this paper. However, I didn’t see the explanation of the detailed mechanisms. Why and how spatial explicit scheme can increase co-existence?
Other comments:
- Line 45: “simulating forest demography”: I’d prefer to use “demographic modeling”.
- Lines 48~49, for the sentence “In recent years, various approaches have been developed to model forest dynamics, striving to balance model fidelity with its complexity.”, it would be better to cite the specific model papers, such as ED, PPA, and forest gap models developed by HH Shugart’s group, instead of just “(Fisher et al., 2018).” For the next sentence, it is ok to use “(Fisher et al., 2018)”
- Lines 115~117: I suggest to rephrase these sentences to make it clearer. For me, it seems the leaves are well-mixed, instead they are sorted vertically.
- Line 168, “a perfect plasticity-like (PPL) approximation”. I didn’t get why the authors call it “PPL”. To me, it is exactly PPA. Why don’t call it “PPA”?
- Line 169, as for the citation, please add “Strigul et al., 2008” (doi: 10.1890/08-0082.1), which is the paper describes the details of PPA.
- Line 176, about the reference of PPA, please use “Strigul et al., 2008”.
- Lines 181~182, “the PPA scheme (Fisher et al., 2018) introduced a gap fraction (η) that represented small gaps between trees within a cohort”, remove “(Fisher et al., 2018)”.
By the way, the “gap fraction” is not a feature of PPA. We added it just for allowing more light in the understory. It’s a tweak.
- Line 193 “assuming instead that all solar radiation came directly from the zenith.”, it is not the case for LM3-PPA (and in the current version of LM4.2). We inherited the radiative transfer scheme in LM3, which considers incidence angle changes during a day.
- Line 270, as for “self-thinning”, in PPA, the density-size relationship is determined by allometry equation and survival rate of understory layer trees.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2995-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
552 | 46 | 13 | 611 | 12 | 29 |
- HTML: 552
- PDF: 46
- XML: 13
- Total: 611
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1