Implementation ambiguity: The fifth element long lost in uncertainty budgets for land biogeochemical modeling

Previous studies have identified four major sources of predictive uncertainty in modeling land biogeochemical (BGC) processes: (1) imperfect initial conditions (e.g., assumption of preindustrial equilibrium); (2) imperfect boundary conditions (e.g., climate forcing data); (3) parameterization (type I equifinality); and (4) model structure (type II equifinality). As if that were not enough to cause substantial sleep loss in modelers, we propose here a fifth element of uncertainty that results from implementation ambiguity that occurs when the model's mathematical description is translated into computational code. We demonstrate the implementation ambiguity using the example of nitrogen down regulation, a necessary process in modeling carbon-climate feedbacks. We show that, depending on common land BGC model interpretations of the governing equations for mineral nitrogen, there are three different implementations of nitrogen down regulation. We coded these three implementations in the ACME land model (ALM), and explored how they lead to different preindustrial and contemporary land biogeochemical states and fluxes. We also show how this implementation ambiguity can lead to different carbon-climate feedback estimates across the RCP scenarios. We conclude by suggesting how to avoid such implementation ambiguity in ESM BGC models.