1 / 23

FVSCLIM: Prognosis Re-Engineered to Incorporate Climate Variables

FVSCLIM: Prognosis Re-Engineered to Incorporate Climate Variables. Again. Robert Froese , Ph.D., R.P.F. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University, Houghton MI 49931. This presentation has four parts.

malini
Download Presentation

FVSCLIM: Prognosis Re-Engineered to Incorporate Climate Variables

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FVSCLIM: Prognosis Re-Engineeredto Incorporate Climate Variables Again Robert Froese, Ph.D., R.P.F. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University, Houghton MI 49931

  2. This presentation has four parts The issue, the question and the model formulations examined The methods and the data sets How do revisions affect fit and prediction accuracy? Does the approach have merit, and what are the next steps? Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

  3. This presentation has four parts The issue, the question and the model formulations examined The methods and the data sets How do revisions affect fit and prediction accuracy? Does the approach have merit, and what are the next steps? Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

  4. This presentation has four parts The issue, the question and the model formulations examined The methods and the data sets How do revisions affect fit and prediction accuracy? Does the approach have merit, and what are the next steps? Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

  5. This presentation has four parts The issue, the question and the model formulations examined The methods and the data sets How do revisions affect fit and prediction accuracy? Does the approach have merit, and what are the next steps? Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

  6. Wykoff’s (1990) Basal Area Increment Model is the subject of this research DDS = DBH2t+10 - DBH2t but actually.. DDS = DBH2t - DBH2t-10 BAI = π/4 (DBH2t - DBH2t-10) DI = (DBH2 + DDS)0.5 - DBH ln(DDS) = f( SIZE +SITE +COMPETITION)

  7. Last year I presented results of a validation study of Wykoff’s model

  8. I wrote it up as a manuscript… “How and Where does Wykoff’s Basal Area Increment Model Fail?” Bill replied: “I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper. The title certainly grabs your attention, especially if your name is Wykoff and you spent many years developing the subject model.”

  9. The Prognosis BAI model is a multiple linear regression on the logarithmic scale Wykoff 1990

  10. Wykoff (1997) proposed a number of revisions to the model formulation Wykoff 1990 Wykoff 1997

  11. Froese (2003) proposed replacing climate proxies with climate variables Wykoff 1997 Froese 2003

  12. The approach involves two parts • evaluating model revisions • Fit Wykoff (1990), Wykoff (1997) and Froese (2003) to the new FIA data • Compare fit and lack-of-fit statistics of different model formulations • testing on independent data • generate predictions for independent testing data • compare bias of prediction residuals across model formulations • Compare results using equivalence tests Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

  13. Froese (2003) pretended to be a physiologist • ANP: total annual precipitation • GSL: growing season length(days with nighttime minimum temperature greater than 0°C) • GSP: total precipitation during the growing season • GST: mean daily temperature during the growing season • GSV: mean daily water vapour pressure deficit during the growing season

  14. Froese (2003) also pretended to be a climatologist

  15. Changing model formulation had small effect on fit statistics Fit to the FIA data: Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

  16. The Froese (2003) model provided biologically-rational behaviour • Biologically reasonable sign and magnitude of model coefficients • Extrapolation issues remain to be resolved Douglas-fir on median site

  17. Testing revealed that every formulation over-predicts on the validation data Tested on the Region 1 data:

  18. The 1990 formulation failed to be validated for the monitoring data

  19. The 1997 model performed better, but was still not validated in this situation

  20. The 2003 model performed similarly to the 1997 model but was also not validated

  21. The substitution of climate variables for proxies is validated using equivalence tests

  22. The model is not appropriately responsive to small and suppressed trees Results for Pseudotsuga menziesii

  23. Some results are encouraging, some suggest that more work is needed • Are we (am I) splitting hairs? • Is an RMSE reduction of 2% useful? • Does it really matter if RMSE reductions are small? • Can we come up with better DDS model formulations? • What’s wrong with predictions for small trees? • Have I modelled climate effects on growth or climate effects on genes? Introduction Approach Performance Relevance

More Related