Abstract

Mechanistic representations of biogeochemical processes in ecosystem models are rapidly advancing, requiring advancements in model evaluation approaches. Here we quantify multiple aspects of model functional performance to evaluate improved process representations in ecosystem models. We compare semi-empirical stomatal models with hydraulic constraints against more mechanistic representations of stomatal and hydraulic functioning at a semi-arid pine site using a suite of metrics and analytical tools. We find that models generally perform similarly under unstressed conditions, but performance diverges under atmospheric and soil drought. The more empirical models better capture synergistic information flows between soil water potential and vapor pressure deficit to transpiration, while the more mechanistic models are overly deterministic. Additionally, both multilayer canopy and big-leaf models were unable to capture the magnitude of canopy temperature divergence from air temperature. Lastly, modeled stable carbon isotope fractionation differed under canopy water stress which illustrates the value of carbon isotopes in helping to characterize ecosystem function and elucidate differences attributable to model structure. This study demonstrates the value of merging underutilized observational data streams with emerging analytical tools to characterize ecosystem function and discriminate among model process representations.