| Bonan, G. B., and S. C. Doney, 2018: Climate, ecosystems, and planetary futures: the challenge to predict life in Earth system models. Science, 359, eaam8328, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8328. |
| Boyle, J. S., S. A. Klein, D. D. Lucas, H.-Y. Ma, J. Tannahill, and S. Xie, 2015: The parametric sensitivity of CAM5’s MJO. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmospheres, 120, 1424−1444, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022507. |
| Bratley, P., and B. L. Fox, 1988: Algorithm 659: Implementing Sobol’s quasirandom sequence generator. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 14(1), 88−100, https://doi.org/10.1145/42288.214372. |
| Chinta, S., and C. Balaji, 2020: Calibration of WRF model parameters using multiobjective adaptive surrogate model-based optimization to improve the prediction of the Indian summer monsoon. Climate Dyn., 55, 631−650, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05288-1. |
| Daniel, C., 1973: One-at-a-time plans. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(342), 353−360, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1973.10482433. |
| Di, Z. H., and Coauthors, 2015: Assessing WRF model parameter sensitivity: A case study with 5 day summer precipitation forecasting in the Greater Beijing Area. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 579−587, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061623. |
| Duan, W. S., and R. Zhang, 2010: Is model parameter error related to a significant spring predictability barrier for El Niño events? Results from a theoretical model. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 27, 1003−1013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-009-9166-4. |
| Homma, T., and A. Saltelli, 1996: Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 52(1), 1−17, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6. |
| Khalid, K., M. F. Ali, N. F. Abd Rahman, and M. R. Mispan, 2016: Application on one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis of semi-distributed hydrological model in tropical watershed. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 132−136, https://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2016.V8.872. |
| Lamboni, M., 2018: Global sensitivity analysis: a generalized, unbiased and optimal estimator of total-effect variance. Statistical Papers, 59, 361−386, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-016-0768-5. |
| Li, J. D., and Coauthors, 2013: Assessing parameter importance of the common land model based on qualitative and quantitative sensitivity analysis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(8), 3279−3293, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3279-2013. |
| Li, Y., and Coauthors, 2017: Reducing the uncertainty of parameters controlling seasonal carbon and water fluxes in Chinese forests and its implication for simulated climate sensitivities. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 31, 1344−1366, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GB005714. |
| Liu, Y., W. D. Guo, and Y. M. Song, 2016: Estimation of key surface parameters in semi-arid region and their impacts on improvement of surface fluxes simulation. Science China Earth Sciences, 59, 307−319, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-015-5140-4. |
| Ma, H. Q., C. F. Ma, X. Li, W. P. Yuan, Z. J. Liu, and G. F. Zhu, 2020: Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of flux-based ecosystem model towards improvement of forest GPP Simulation. Sustainability, 12(7), 2584, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072584. |
| Morris, M. D., 1991: Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics, 33(2), 161−174, https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804. |
| Mu, M., W. S. Duan, and B. Wang, 2003: Conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation and its applications. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 10, 493−501, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-10-493-2003. |
| Mu, M., W. Duan, Q. Wang, and R. Zhang, 2010: An extension of conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation approach and its applications. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 17, 211−220, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-17-211-2010. |
| Peng, F., and G. D. Sun, 2017: A new climate scenario for assessing the climate change impacts on soil moisture over the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain region of China. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 10(2), 105−113, https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2017.1255536. |
| Pitman, A. J., 1994: Assessing the sensitivity of a Land-Surface scheme to the parameter values using a single column model. J. Climate, 7, 1856−1869, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007<1856:ATSOAL>2.0.CO;2. |
| Rayner, P. J., M. Scholze, W. Knorr, T. Kaminski, R. Giering, and H. Widmann, 2005: Two decades of terrestrial carbon fluxes from a carbon cycle data assimilation system (CCDAS). Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 19, GB2026, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002254. |
| Razavi, S., and H. V. Gupta, 2015: What do we mean by sensitivity analysis? The need for comprehensive characterization of “global” sensitivity in Earth and Environmental systems models Water Resour. Res., 51, 3070−3092, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016527. |
| Razavi, S., and H. V. Gupta, 2016: A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 1. Theory. Water Resour. Res., 52, 423−439, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017558. |
| Ren, X. L., H. L. He, D. J. P. Moore, L. Zhang, M. Liu, F. Li, G. R. Yu, and H. M. Wang, 2013: Uncertainty analysis of modeled carbon and water fluxes in a subtropical coniferous plantation. J. Geophys. Res.: Biogeosci., 118, 1674−1688, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002402. |
| Rosero, E., Z. L. Yang, T. Wagener, L. E. Gulden, S. Yatheendradas, and G. Y. Niu, 2010: Quantifying parameter sensitivity, interaction, and transferability in hydrologically enhanced versions of the Noah land surface model over transition zones during the warm season. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 115, D03106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012035. |
| Saltelli, A., and I. M. Sobol’, 1995: About the use of rank transformation in sensitivity analysis of model output. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 50, 225−239, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00099-2. |
| Saltelli, A., P. Annoni, I. Azzini, F. Campolongo, M. Ratto, and S. Tarantola, 2010: Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Computer Physics Communications, 181(2), 259−270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018. |
| Saltelli, A., M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, D. Gatelli, M. Saisana, and S. Tarantola, 2008: Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. John Wiley & Sons, 285 pp. |
| Sheffield, J., and E. F. Wood, 2007: Characteristics of global and regional drought, 1950–2000: Analysis of soil moisture data from off-line simulation of the terrestrial hydrologic cycle. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 112, D17115, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008288. |
| Sheikholeslami, R., S. Razavi, H. V. Gupta, W. Becker, and A. Haghnegahdar, 2019: Global sensitivity analysis for high-dimensional problems: How to objectively group factors and measure robustness and convergence while reducing computational cost. Environmental Modelling and Software, 111, 282−299, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.002. |
| Sobol’, I. M., 1990: On sensitivity estimation for nonlinear mathematical models. Matematicheskoe Modelirovanie, 2(1), 112−118. (in Russian) |
| Sobol’, I. M., and S. S. Kucherenko, 2005: On global sensitivity analysis of quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms. Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, 11(1), 83−92, https://doi.org/10.1515/1569396054027274. |
| Storn, R., and K. Price, 1997: Differential evolution - A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4), 341−359, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328. |
| Sun, G. D., and M. Mu, 2009: Nonlinear feature of the abrupt transitions between multiple equilibria states of an ecosystem model. Adv. Atmos. Sci, 26(2), 293−304, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-009-0293-8. |
| Sun, G. D., and M. Mu, 2017: A new approach to identify the sensitivity and importance of physical parameters combination within numerical models using the Lund-Potsdam-Jena (LPJ) model as an example. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 128, 587−601, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1690-9. |
| Sun, G. D., and D. D. Xie, 2017: A study of parameter uncertainties causing uncertainties in modeling a grassland ecosystem using the conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation method. Science China Earth Sciences, 60(9), 1674−1684, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-9065-9. |
| Sun, G. D., and M. Mu, 2021: Impacts of two types of errors on the predictability of terrestrial carbon cycle. Ecosphere, 12(1), e03315, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3315. |
| Sun, G. D., F. Peng, and M. Mu, 2017: Uncertainty assessment and sensitivity analysis of soil moisture based on model parameter errors - results from four regions in China. J. Hydrol., 555, 347−360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.059. |
| Sun, G. D., M. Mu, and Q. L. You, 2020: Identification of key physical processes and improvements for simulating and predicting net primary production over the Tibetan Plateau. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 125, e2020JD033128, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033128. |
| Wang, L., X. S. Shen, J. J. Liu, and B. Wang, 2020: Model uncertainty representation for a convection-allowing ensemble prediction system based on CNOP-P. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 37(8), 817−831, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-9262-z. |
| Wang, Q., Y. M. Tang, and H. A. Dijkstra, 2017: An optimization strategy for identifying parameter sensitivity in atmospheric and oceanic models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145(8), 3293−3305, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0393.1. |
| Wang, Q., S. Pierini, and Y. M. Tang, 2019: Parameter sensitivity analysis of the short-range prediction of Kuroshio extension transition processes using an optimization approach. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 138, 1481−1492, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-02911-y. |
| Wu, H. H., C. S. Fu, H. W. Wu, and L. L. Zhang, 2020: Plant hydraulic stress strategy improves model predictions of the response of gross primary productivity to drought across China. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 125, e2020JD033476, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033476. |
| Ye, D., S. W. Zhang, F. Y. Wang, F. P. Mao, and X. X. Yang, 2017: The applicability of different parameterization schemes in semi-arid region based on Noah-MP land surface model. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 41(1), 189−201, https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.1604.15226. (in Chinese with English abstract |
| Zeng, X. D., S. S. P. Shen, X. B. Zeng, and R. E. Dickinson, 2004: Multiple equilibrium states and the abrupt transitions in a dynamical system of soil water interacting with vegetation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L05501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018910. |
| Zeng, X. D., X. B. Zeng, S. S. P. Shen, R. E. Dickingson, and Q. C. Zeng, 2005b: Vegetation-soil water interaction within a dynamical ecosystem model of grassland in semi-arid areas. Tellus B, 57, 189−202, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v57i3.16542. |
| Zeng, X. D., A. H. Wang, G. Zhao, S. S. P. Shen, X. B. Zeng, and Q. C. Zeng, 2005a: Ecological dynamic model of grassland and its practical verification. Science in China. Series C, Life Sciences, 48, 41−48, https://doi.org/10.1360/03yc0219. |
| Zeng, X. D., A. H. Wang, Q. C. Zeng, R. E. Dickinson, X. B. Zeng, and S. S. P. Shen, 2006: Intermediately complex models for the hydrological interactions in the atmosphere-vegetation-soil system. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 23(1), 127−140, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-006-0013-6. |