The DigiBog model of peatland development 1: rationale, conceptual model, and hydrological basis

Using a literature review, we argue that new models of peatland development are needed. Many existing models do not account for potentially important ecohydrological feedbacks, and/or ignore spatial structure and heterogeneity. Existing models, including those that simulate a near total loss of the northern peatland carbon store under a warming climate, may produce misleading results because they rely upon oversimplified representations of ecological and hydrological processes. In this, the first of a pair of papers, we present the conceptual framework for a model of peatland development, DigiBog, which considers peatlands as complex adaptive systems. DigiBog accounts for the interactions between the processes which govern litter production and peat decay, peat soil hydraulic properties, and peatland water-table behaviour, in a novel and genuinely ecohydrological manner. DigiBog consists of a number of interacting submodels, each representing a different aspect of peatland ecohydrology. Here we present in detail the mathematical and computational basis, as well as the implementation and testing, of the hydrological submodel. Remaining submodels are described and analysed in the accompanying paper. Tests of the hydrological submodel against analytical solutions for simple aquifers were highly successful: the greatest deviation between DigiBog and the analytical solutions was 2·83%. We also applied the hydrological submodel to irregularly shaped aquifers with heterogeneous hydraulic properties—situations for which no analytical solutions exist—and found the model's outputs to be plausible.

Integrating the Climate Science Modelling Language with geospatial software and services

Much consideration is rightly given to the design of metadata models to describe data. At the other end of the data-delivery spectrum much thought has also been given to the design of geospatial delivery interfaces such as the Open Geospatial Consortium standards, Web Coverage Service (WCS), Web Map Server and Web Feature Service (WFS). Our recent experience with the Climate Science Modelling Language shows that an implementation gap exists where many challenges remain unsolved. To bridge this gap requires transposing information and data from one world view of geospatial climate data to another. Some of the issues include: the loss of information in mapping to a common information model, the need to create ‘views’ onto file-based storage, and the need to map onto an appropriate delivery interface (as with the choice between WFS and WCS for feature types with coverage-valued properties). Here we summarise the approaches we have taken in facing up to these problems.