Calibration of the FullCAM model for Australian native vegetation

David I. Forrester, Jacqueline R. England, Chiara Pasut, Keryn I. Paul, Lauren T. Bennett, Chris Eastaugh, Thomas Fairman, Melissa Fedrigo, Carl R. Gosper, Sabine Kasel, Tom Lewis, Crispen Marunda, Victor J. Neldner, Michael R. Ngugi, O’Donnell, Alison, Gerald F.M. Page, Suzanne M. Prober, Anna E. Richards, Shaun Suitor, Liubov Volkova, Christopher J. Weston, Stephen H. Roxburgh and Ying-Ping Wang

Ecological Modelling, 2025, vol. 508, issue C

Abstract: The Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM) simulates carbon (C) pools of live biomass, standing dead mass, debris and soil, the flows among them and the atmosphere, and the influences of fire and harvesting disturbances under Australian conditions. It is regularly used by governments, landowners, companies and researchers, at continental, regional and local scales. Recently, FullCAM was calibrated for seven categories of native tropical savanna vegetation. However, for non-savanna native vegetation, calibrated parameters are available for only two general vegetation categories, based on whether the annual rainfall exceeds or falls below 500 mm. These two categories are too broad to capture the large range of growth conditions, vegetation structures and species assemblages that occur across Australia’s native woody vegetation. Here, our objective was to improve FullCAM’s ability to model variation in C pools and post-disturbance recovery among eight native vegetation categories, from shrublands to rainforests, for which there were differences in biomass allocation, litterfall and/or decomposition. To do this, we calibrated FullCAM for each vegetation type, including 14 parameters that were calculated directly from field observations and 17 that were calibrated using a dataset containing about 9300 field plots with measurements of at least one woody vegetation C stock. New parameters (compared with the two general parameter sets) reduced bias from 77 to 25 % (averaged across C stocks), and root mean square error from 44 to 30 Mg C ha-1. Model accuracy could be further improved (i) by focusing on sites with a known disturbance history, (ii) calibrating as many vegetation categories as possible (instead of eight categories generalising across many species), and (iii) adding more detail to growth calculations to quantify factors that may not be adequately represented by FullCAM’s growth equation.

Keywords: Allocation; Carbon sequestration; Disturbance; Forest growth; Full Carbon Accounting Model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380025001899
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:508:y:2025:i:c:s0304380025001899

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2025.111204

Access Statistics for this article

Ecological Modelling is currently edited by Brian D. Fath

More articles in Ecological Modelling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().