TY - JOUR
T1 - Multi-Model Ensembles in Ecosystem Modeling
T2 - Challenges and Best Practices for Decision-Making
AU - Guan, Kaiyu
AU - Qin, Rongzhu
AU - Ma, Zewei
AU - Zhao, Lei
AU - Liu, Licheng
AU - Wang, Sheng
AU - Keenan, Trevor F.
AU - Jia, Mengqi
AU - Sihi, Debjani
AU - Potash, Eric
AU - Asseng, Senthold
AU - Tang, Jingyun
AU - Xu, Xiangtao
AU - Boomer, Katheleen
AU - Peng, Bin
AU - Jin, Zhenong
AU - Hoffman, Forrest M.
AU - Ogle, Stephen
AU - Coppess, Jonathan
AU - Khanna, Madhu
AU - Whitcraft, Alyssa
AU - Runkle, Benjamin R.K.
N1 - We greatly appreciate Dr. Dennis Baldocchi’s grand vision and inclusive leadership in establishing and expanding the global biometeorology and flux community, which has inspired generations of scientists, including many authors here in this work. We acknowledge supports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Chief Economist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Acres Consortium, Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) Seeding Solutions, National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award through the NSF Environmental Sustainability Program, NASA Carbon Monitoring System grant 80NSSC21K1002, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (CABBI), Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, under Award Number DE‐SC0018420. We also acknowledge support from Singapore National Research Foundation for the AI4S program and various philanthropic support for the SIGMA program. K.G., D.S. and S.O. acknowledge the Agricultural Nitrogen Use Efficiency (AgNUE) program funded through FFAR and Novo Nordisk Foundation. D.S. also acknowledges support from the DOE Environmental System Science Program (Award Number DE‐SC0025314) and NSF Ecosystem Science Program (Award Number DEB‐2517620). T.F.K. and F.M.H. acknowledge support from the Reducing Uncertainties in Biogeochemical Interactions through Synthesis and Computation (RUBISCO) Science Focus Area (SFA), which is sponsored by the Regional and Global Model Analysis (RGMA) Program in the Climate and Environmental Sciences Division (CESD) of the Office of BER in the U.S. DOE Office of Science. T.F.K. also acknowledges support from a DOE Early Career Research Program Award Number DE‐SC0021023 and NASA Awards 80NSSC21K1705 and 80NSSC25K7327. F.M.H. also acknowledges Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which is managed by UT‐Battelle LLC, for the US Department of Energy under Award Number DE‐AC05‐00OR22725. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy.
PY - 2026/8
Y1 - 2026/8
N2 - Ecosystem models are increasingly central to the decision-making for environmental policy, conservation planning, and climate-related investments. Yet, the growing reliance on Multi-Model Ensembles (MMEs) of ecosystem models by practitioners and policymakers, sometimes under tight timelines and imperfect information, has frequently outpaced the scientific rigor required to ensure ensemble reliability. Here, MMEs refer to approaches that combine targeted predictions from multiple models with the expectation of improving robustness and quantifying predictive uncertainty. Poorly designed MMEs may create a false sense of confidence and lead to suboptimal policy and market decisions. This perspective argues that robust decision-making-relevant MMEs must be grounded on two pillars: (1) rigorous Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs), which identify inter-model agreement and disagreement, characterize model uncertainties, and evaluate robustness with observationally based benchmarks—MIPs' diagnostic evaluation is so critical that it must be needed to drive MME's decision in model selection and weighting, especially when only a limited number of models available; and (2) co-design by both stakeholders and scientists to ensure that scenarios, metrics and uncertainty requirements provide decision-relevant information. Building upon the past success and lessons from the existing MIPs-MMEs efforts (e.g., climate/Earth system/crop), we derived the theoretical basis for MMEs, addressed their specific challenges in ecosystem modeling, and highlighted proper consideration of model numbers and diversity, risk of model inter-dependence, effective calibration of model parameters, possible overdue of some ecosystem model development, critical roles of open benchmark data across a wide range of conditions, and suggested use of Artificial Intelligence to support MIPs-MMEs. We highlighted the under-recognized opportunity for MIPs and MMEs to drive scientific progress and innovation through identifying better performing models, systematic benchmarking, feedback loops, and targeted model improvement. By following actionable best practice guidelines, MMEs can evolve from ad hoc aggregation of models into a trusted backbone of environmental policy and decision-making.
AB - Ecosystem models are increasingly central to the decision-making for environmental policy, conservation planning, and climate-related investments. Yet, the growing reliance on Multi-Model Ensembles (MMEs) of ecosystem models by practitioners and policymakers, sometimes under tight timelines and imperfect information, has frequently outpaced the scientific rigor required to ensure ensemble reliability. Here, MMEs refer to approaches that combine targeted predictions from multiple models with the expectation of improving robustness and quantifying predictive uncertainty. Poorly designed MMEs may create a false sense of confidence and lead to suboptimal policy and market decisions. This perspective argues that robust decision-making-relevant MMEs must be grounded on two pillars: (1) rigorous Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs), which identify inter-model agreement and disagreement, characterize model uncertainties, and evaluate robustness with observationally based benchmarks—MIPs' diagnostic evaluation is so critical that it must be needed to drive MME's decision in model selection and weighting, especially when only a limited number of models available; and (2) co-design by both stakeholders and scientists to ensure that scenarios, metrics and uncertainty requirements provide decision-relevant information. Building upon the past success and lessons from the existing MIPs-MMEs efforts (e.g., climate/Earth system/crop), we derived the theoretical basis for MMEs, addressed their specific challenges in ecosystem modeling, and highlighted proper consideration of model numbers and diversity, risk of model inter-dependence, effective calibration of model parameters, possible overdue of some ecosystem model development, critical roles of open benchmark data across a wide range of conditions, and suggested use of Artificial Intelligence to support MIPs-MMEs. We highlighted the under-recognized opportunity for MIPs and MMEs to drive scientific progress and innovation through identifying better performing models, systematic benchmarking, feedback loops, and targeted model improvement. By following actionable best practice guidelines, MMEs can evolve from ad hoc aggregation of models into a trusted backbone of environmental policy and decision-making.
KW - ecosystem modeling
KW - model development
KW - model evaluation
KW - model intercomparison projects
KW - model uncertainty
KW - multi-model ensembles
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105047319537
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105047319537#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1111/gcb.70987
DO - 10.1111/gcb.70987
M3 - Short survey
C2 - 42596789
AN - SCOPUS:105047319537
SN - 1354-1013
VL - 32
JO - Global change biology
JF - Global change biology
IS - 8
M1 - e70987
ER -