Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bayesian Methods for Quantifying and Reducing Uncertainty and Error in Forest Models

  • Modelling Productivity and Function (M Battaglia, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Forest models are tools for analysis and prediction of productivity and other services. Model outputs can only be useful if possible errors in inputs and model structure are recognized. However, errors cannot be quantified directly, making uncertainty inevitable. In this paper, we aim to clarify terminological confusion around the concepts of error and uncertainty and review current methods for addressing uncertainty in forest modelling.

Recent findings

Modellers increasingly recognize that all uncertainties—in data, model inputs and model structure—can be represented using probability distributions. This has stimulated the use of Bayesian methods for quantifying and reducing uncertainty and error in models of forests and other vegetation. The Achilles’ heel of Bayesian methods has always been their computational demand, but solutions are being found.

Summary

We conclude that future work will likely include (1) more use of Bayesian methods, (2) more use of hierarchical modelling, (3) replacement of model spin-up by Bayesian calibration, (4) more use of ensemble modelling and Bayesian model averaging, (5) new ways to account for model structural error in calibration, (6) better software for Bayesian calibration of complex models, (7) faster Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, (8) more use of model emulators, (9) novel uncertainty visualization techniques, (10) more use of graphical modelling and (11) more use of risk analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Mäkelä A, del Río M, Hynynen J, Hawkins MJ, Reyer C, Soares P, et al. Using stand-scale forest models for estimating indicators of sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manag. 2012;285:164–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hickler T, Rammig A, Werner C. Modelling CO2 impacts on forest productivity. Current Forestry Reports. 2015;1:69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. • Reyer C. Forest productivity under environmental change—a review of stand-scale modeling studies. Current Forestry Reports. 2015;1:53–68. This paper is useful for forest modellers aiming to provide global assessments of the impacts of environmental change: it identifies those forest types and parts of the globe for which data are at present lacking.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fontes L, Bontemps J-D, Bugmann H, Van Oijen M, Gracia C, Kramer K, et al. Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. Forest Systems. 2010;3:8–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hartig F, Dyke J, Hickler T, Higgins SI, O’Hara RB, Scheiter S, et al. Connecting dynamic vegetation models to data—an inverse perspective. J Biogeogr. 2012;39:2240–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jaynes ET. Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

  7. Sivia D, Skilling J. Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, U.S.A; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ogle K, Barber JJ. Bayesian data in plant physiological and ecosystem ecology. In: Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Murata J, editors. Progress in botany. Springer: Berlin; 2008. p. 281–311.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Oijen M, Cameron D, Butterbach-Bahl K, Farahbakhshazad N, Jansson P-E, Kiese R, et al. A Bayesian framework for model calibration, comparison and analysis: application to four models for the biogeochemistry of a Norway spruce forest. Agric For Meteorol. 2011;151:1609–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. • Van Oijen M, Cameron D, Levy PE, Preston R. Correcting errors from spatial upscaling of nonlinear greenhouse gas flux models. Environ Model Softw. 2017;94:157–65. This paper reviews and revives the powerful yet neglected idea that errors caused by spatial aggregation of the inputs of nonlinear models can be estimated well using a Taylor-expansion of the model, together with information on spatial variability of the inputs.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cameron DR, Van Oijen M, Werner C, Butterbach-Bahl K, Grote R, Haas E, et al. Environmental change impacts on the C- and N-cycle of European forests: a model comparison study. Biogeosciences. 2013;10:1751–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Oijen M, Ågren GI, Chertov O, Kellomäki S, Komarov A, Mobbs D, et al. Evaluation of past and future changes in European forest growth by means of four process-based models. In: Kahle H-P, Karjalainen T, Schuck A, Ågren GI, Kellomäki S, Mellert K, Prietzel J, Rehfuess K-E, Spiecker H, editors. Causes and consequences of forest growth trends in Europe: results of the recognition project. Leiden: Brill; 2008. p. 183–99.

  13. Van Oijen M, Reyer C, Bohn F, Cameron D, Deckmyn G, Flechsig M, et al. Bayesian calibration, comparison and averaging of six forest models, using data from Scots pine stands across Europe. For Ecol Manag. 2013;289:255–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Levy PE, Wendler R, Van Oijen M, Cannell MG, Millard P. The effect of nitrogen enrichment on the carbon sink in coniferous forests: uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of three ecosystem models. Water, Air, Soil Pollution: Focus. 2005;4:67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Oijen M, Thomson A. Toward Bayesian uncertainty quantification for forestry models used in the United Kingdom Greenhouse Gas Inventory for land use, land use change, and forestry. Clim Chang. 2010;103:55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hyvönen R, Ågren GI, Linder S, Persson T, Cotrufo MF, Ekblad A, et al. The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol. 2007;173:463–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rollinson CR, Liu Y, Raiho A, Moore DJP, McLachlan J, Bishop DA, et al. Emergent climate and CO2 sensitivities of net primary productivity in ecosystem models do not agree with empirical data in temperate forests of eastern North America. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23:2755–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Oijen M, Cannell MGR, Levy PE. Modelling biogeochemical cycles in forests: state of the art and perspectives. In: Andersson F, Birot Y, Päivinen R, editors. Towards the sustainable use of European forests-Forest ecosystem and landscape research: scientific challenges and opportunities. Joensuu: European Forest Institute; 2004. p. 157–69.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Clark JS, Iverson L, Woodall CW, Allen CD, Bell DM, Bragg DC, et al. The impacts of increasing drought on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the United States. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22:2329–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson MO, Galbraith D, Gloor M, De Deurwaerder H, Guimberteau M, Rammig A, et al. Variation in stem mortality rates determines patterns of above-ground biomass in Amazonian forests: implications for dynamic global vegetation models. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22:3996–4013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlesinger WH, Dietze MC, Jackson RB, Phillips RP, Rhoades CC, Rustad LE, et al. Forest biogeochemistry in response to drought. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22:2318–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Medlyn BE, Zaehle S, De Kauwe MG, Walker AP, Dietze MC, Hanson PJ, et al. Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;5:528–34. This very clear paper can be seen as a counterpoint to the present one in that it does not mention probability theory as a tool to reduce uncertainty, but instead focuses on consistency with mechanistic understanding.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. J Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology). 2001;63:425–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fu YH, Campioli M, Van Oijen M, Deckmyn G, Janssens IA. Bayesian comparison of six different temperature-based budburst models for four temperate tree species. Ecol Model. 2012;230:92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reyer CPO, Flechsig M, Lasch-Born P, van Oijen M. Integrating parameter uncertainty of a process-based model in assessments of climate change effects on forest productivity. Clim Chang. 2016;137:395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutton MA, Simpson D, Levy PE, Smith RI, Reis S, van Oijen M, et al. Uncertainties in the relationship between atmospheric nitrogen deposition and forest carbon sequestration. Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14:2057–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Minunno F, van Oijen M, Cameron D, Cerasoli S, Pereira J, Tomé M. Using a Bayesian framework and global sensitivity analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses of two process-based models differing in representation of autotrophic respiration. Environ Model Softw. 2013;42:99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bayes T. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos Trans. 1763;53:370–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis, third edition. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  30. • McElreath R. Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016. Perhaps the best introduction to Bayesian methods for absolute beginners, explaining both concepts and methods with impressive clarity.

  31. Van Oijen M, Rougier J, Smith R. Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: bridging the gap between models and data. Tree Physiol. 2005;25:915–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Levy PE, Cowan N, Van Oijen M, Famulari D, Drewer J, Skiba U. Estimation of cumulative fluxes of nitrous oxide: Uncertainty in temporal upscaling and emission factors. Eur J Soil Sci. 2017;68:400–11.

  33. Patenaude G, Milne R, Van Oijen M, Rowland CS, Hill RA. Integrating remote sensing datasets into ecological modelling: a Bayesian approach. Int J Remote Sens. 2008;29:1295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Höglind M, Van Oijen M, Cameron D, Persson T. Process-based simulation of growth and overwintering of grassland using the BASGRA model. Ecol Model. 2016;335:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys. 1953;21:1087–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Oijen M. Bayesian Calibration (BC) and Bayesian Model Comparison (BMC) of process-based models: Theory, implementation and guidelines. Edinburgh: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; 2008. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/6087/. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.

  37. •• Hartig F, Minunno F, Paul S, Cameron D, Ott T. Package ‘BayesianTools’. The Comprehensive R Archive Network; 2017. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesianTools/BayesianTools.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2017. This document introduces a major software development: an R-package that facilitates the use of Bayesian calibration by means of MCMC for complex process-based models of forests and other vegetation.

  38. Dietze MC, Lebauer DS, Kooper R. On improving the communication between models and data. Plant Cell Environ. 2013;36:1575–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Minunno F, van Oijen M, Cameron DR, Pereira JS. Selecting parameters for Bayesian calibration of a process-based model: a methodology based on canonical correlation analysis. SIAM/ASA J Uncertainty Quantification. 2013;1:370–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kobayashi K, Salam MU. Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agron J. 2000;92:345–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cressie N, Calder CA, Clark JS, Hoef JMV, Wikle CK. Accounting for uncertainty in ecological analysis: the strengths and limitations of hierarchical statistical modeling. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:553–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ogle K. Hierarchical Bayesian statistics: merging experimental and modeling approaches in ecology. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:577–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Simpson AH, Richardson SJ, Laughlin DC. Soilclimate interactions explain variation in foliar, stem, root and reproductive traits across temperate forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2016;25:964–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cressie N, Wikle CK. Statistics for spatio-temporal data. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.

  45. Dietze MC, Wolosin MS, Clark JS. Capturing diversity and interspecific variability in allometries: a hierarchical approach. For Ecol Manag. 2008;256:1939–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rougier J. Probabilistic inference for future climate using an ensemble of climate model evaluations. Clim Chang. 2007;81:247–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chandler RE. Exploiting strength, discounting weakness: Combining information from multiple climate simulators. Phil Trans R Soc A 2013;371:20120388. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0388.

  48. Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Franks SW. Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory. Water Resour Res 2006;42:W03407. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004368.

  49. Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:773–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science. 2011;333:1393–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. • Milne AE, Glendining MJ, Lark RM, Perryman SAM, Gordon T, Whitmore AP. Communicating the uncertainty in estimated greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. J Environ Manag. 2015;160:139–53. A thorough assessment of six different ways of communicating uncertainty, both verbal and visual.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. •• Van Oijen M, Balkovič J, Beer C, Cameron DR, Ciais P, Cramer W, et al. Impact of droughts on the carbon cycle in European vegetation: a probabilistic risk analysis using six vegetation models. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:6357–75. This paper shows how risk can be formally decomposed as the product of two terms: hazard probability and ecosystem vulnerability. The method is applied to the results of six vegetation models, and predicts future drought risk to increase mainly in Mediterranean vegetation because of changes in hazard probability.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Smith R, Dick J, Trench H, Van Oijen M. Extending a Bayesian belief network for ecosystem evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 5-6 October 2012, Berlin, Germany. 2012. http://www.berlinconference.org/2012/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/Smith-Extending_a_Bayesian_Belief_Network_for_ecosystem_evaluation-266.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.

  54. Yeluripati JB, van Oijen M, Wattenbach M, Neftel A, Ammann A, Parton W, et al. Bayesian calibration as a tool for initialising the carbon pools of dynamic soil models. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009;41:2579–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Peter Levy (CEH-Edinburgh) for his comments on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, EH26 0QB, UK

    Marcel van Oijen

Authors
  1. Marcel van Oijen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel van Oijen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Van Oijen states that there are no conflicts of interests to declare.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Modelling Productivity and Function

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Oijen, M. Bayesian Methods for Quantifying and Reducing Uncertainty and Error in Forest Models. Curr Forestry Rep 3, 269–280 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0069-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0069-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation