TY - JOUR
T1 - Soil organic carbon models need independent time-series validation for reliable prediction
AU - Le Noë, Julia
AU - Manzoni, Stefano
AU - Abramoff, Rose
AU - Bölscher, Tobias
AU - Bruni, Elisa
AU - Cardinael, Rémi
AU - Ciais, Philippe
AU - Chenu, Claire
AU - Clivot, Hugues
AU - Derrien, Delphine
AU - Ferchaud, Fabien
AU - Garnier, Patricia
AU - Goll, Daniel
AU - Lashermes, Gwenaëlle
AU - Martin, Manuel
AU - Rasse, Daniel
AU - Rees, Frédéric
AU - Sainte-Marie, Julien
AU - Salmon, Elodie
AU - Schiedung, Marcus
AU - Schimel, Josh
AU - Wieder, William
AU - Abiven, Samuel
AU - Barré, Pierre
AU - Cécillon, Lauric
AU - Guenet, Bertrand
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Numerical models are crucial to understand and/or predict past and future soil organic carbon dynamics. For those models aiming at prediction, validation is a critical step to gain confidence in projections. With a comprehensive review of ~250 models, we assess how models are validated depending on their objectives and features, discuss how validation of predictive models can be improved. We find a critical lack of independent validation using observed time series. Conducting such validations should be a priority to improve the model reliability. Approximately 60% of the models we analysed are not designed for predictions, but rather for conceptual understanding of soil processes. These models provide important insights by identifying key processes and alternative formalisms that can be relevant for predictive models. We argue that combining independent validation based on observed time series and improved information flow between predictive and conceptual models will increase reliability in predictions.
AB - Numerical models are crucial to understand and/or predict past and future soil organic carbon dynamics. For those models aiming at prediction, validation is a critical step to gain confidence in projections. With a comprehensive review of ~250 models, we assess how models are validated depending on their objectives and features, discuss how validation of predictive models can be improved. We find a critical lack of independent validation using observed time series. Conducting such validations should be a priority to improve the model reliability. Approximately 60% of the models we analysed are not designed for predictions, but rather for conceptual understanding of soil processes. These models provide important insights by identifying key processes and alternative formalisms that can be relevant for predictive models. We argue that combining independent validation based on observed time series and improved information flow between predictive and conceptual models will increase reliability in predictions.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85158074717
U2 - 10.1038/s43247-023-00830-5
DO - 10.1038/s43247-023-00830-5
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85158074717
SN - 2662-4435
VL - 4
JO - Communications Earth and Environment
JF - Communications Earth and Environment
IS - 1
M1 - 158
ER -