Research article Special Issues

Combining state-and-transition simulations and species distribution models to anticipate the effects of climate change

  • State-and-transition simulation models (STSMs) are known for their ability to explore the combined effects of multiple disturbances, ecological dynamics, and management actions on vegetation. However, integrating the additional impacts of climate change into STSMs remains a challenge. We address this challenge by combining an STSM with species distribution modeling (SDM). SDMs estimate the probability of occurrence of a given species based on observed presence and absence locations as well as environmental and climatic covariates. Thus, in order to account for changes in habitat suitability due to climate change, we used SDM to generate continuous surfaces of species occurrence probabilities. These data were imported into ST-Sim, an STSM platform, where they dictated the probability of each cell transitioning between alternate potential vegetation types at each time step. The STSM was parameterized to capture additional processes of vegetation growth and disturbance that are relevant to a keystone species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem—whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). We compared historical model runs against historical observations of whitebark pine and a key disturbance agent (mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae), and then projected the simulation into the future. Using this combination of correlative and stochastic simulation models, we were able to reproduce historical observations and identify key data gaps. Results indicated that SDMs and STSMs are complementary tools, and combining them is an effective way to account for the anticipated impacts of climate change, biotic interactions, and disturbances, while also allowing for the exploration of management options.

    Citation: Brian W. Miller, Leonardo Frid, Tony Chang, Nathan Piekielek, Andrew J. Hansen, Jeffrey T. Morisette. Combining state-and-transition simulations and species distribution models to anticipate the effects of climate change[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(2): 400-426. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.2.400

    Related Papers:

    [1] Uichi Akiba, Jun-ichi Anzai . Cyclodextrin-containing layer-by-layer films and microcapsules: Synthesis and applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(4): 832-846. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.4.832
    [2] Said Karim Shah, Jahangeer Khan, Irfan Ullah, Yaqoob Khan . Optimization of active-layer thickness, top electrode and annealing temperature for polymeric solar cells. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(3): 789-799. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.3.789
    [3] Rucheng Zhu, Yota Mabuchi, Riteshkumar Vishwakarma, Balaram Paudel Jaisi, Haibin Li, Masami Naito, Masayoshi Umeno, Tetsuo Soga . Enhancing in-plane uniformity of graphene nanowalls using a rotating platform for solid-state lithium-ion battery. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(4): 760-773. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024037
    [4] Yuguo Tao, Vijaykumar Upadhyaya, Keenan Jones, Ajeet Rohatgi . Tunnel oxide passivated rear contact for large area n-type front junction silicon solar cells providing excellent carrier selectivity. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(1): 180-189. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.1.180
    [5] Stefan Wagner, Astrid Pundt . Hydrogen as a probe for defects in materials: Isotherms and related microstructures of palladium-hydrogen thin films. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(4): 399-419. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.4.399
    [6] Silvia Colodrero . Conjugated polymers as functional hole selective layers in efficient metal halide perovskite solar cells. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(4): 956-969. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.4.956
    [7] Hmoud. Al-Dmour . Capacitance response of solar cells based on amorphous Titanium dioxide (A-TiO2) semiconducting heterojunctions. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(2): 261-270. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021017
    [8] Ouassim Hamdi, Frej Mighri, Denis Rodrigue . Piezoelectric cellular polymer films: Fabrication, properties and applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(5): 845-869. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.5.845
    [9] Thomas Debesay, Sam-Shajing Sun, Messaoud Bahoura . Multi-functional organic field effect transistor based on a dual doped P3HT. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(5): 823-835. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021050
    [10] Nur Jassriatul Aida binti Jamaludin, Shanmugan Subramani . Thermal performance of LED fixed on CVD processed ZnO thin film on Al substrates at various O2 gas flow rates. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(2): 246-256. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.2.246
  • State-and-transition simulation models (STSMs) are known for their ability to explore the combined effects of multiple disturbances, ecological dynamics, and management actions on vegetation. However, integrating the additional impacts of climate change into STSMs remains a challenge. We address this challenge by combining an STSM with species distribution modeling (SDM). SDMs estimate the probability of occurrence of a given species based on observed presence and absence locations as well as environmental and climatic covariates. Thus, in order to account for changes in habitat suitability due to climate change, we used SDM to generate continuous surfaces of species occurrence probabilities. These data were imported into ST-Sim, an STSM platform, where they dictated the probability of each cell transitioning between alternate potential vegetation types at each time step. The STSM was parameterized to capture additional processes of vegetation growth and disturbance that are relevant to a keystone species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem—whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). We compared historical model runs against historical observations of whitebark pine and a key disturbance agent (mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae), and then projected the simulation into the future. Using this combination of correlative and stochastic simulation models, we were able to reproduce historical observations and identify key data gaps. Results indicated that SDMs and STSMs are complementary tools, and combining them is an effective way to account for the anticipated impacts of climate change, biotic interactions, and disturbances, while also allowing for the exploration of management options.


    1. Introduction

    For more than five decades, quasi-two-dimensional structures in the form of quantum semiconductor films (quantum wells) have been intensively studied both theoretically and experimentally [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. They very quickly found a variety of instrumental applications and occupy their solid place in modern solid-state electronics [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Such a wide application of these quasi-two-dimensional quantum structures is mainly due to two factors, the presence of which is fundamentally impossible in a three-dimensional sample. This is the phenomenon of the size quantization of charge carriers in one of the directions of motion [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] and corresponding to this phenomenon the specificity of the quasi-two-dimensional Fermi distribution of electrons and holes in the film [1,2,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. In reality, being a three-dimensional system, a quantum semiconductor film exhibits a number of properties characteristic of 2D systems in the field of multiparticle phenomena (in fact, the two-dimensional nature of the Coulomb coupling in the sample, the two-dimensional dispersion law and the two-dimensional density of states for carriers, etc.).

    The object of our consideration in this paper will be precisely questions of the statistics of charge carriers in a quantum semiconductor film. The general questions of the properties of the Fermi-Dirac distribution in a semiconductor film, when dimensional quantization of carriers in one direction takes place are considered in Refs. [1,2,29,30,31,36,37]. In these papers, the dependence of the chemical potential of the electronic subsystem on the thickness of the film is also considered. The papers [32,33,34,35] are devoted to the determination of the chemical potential of the electronic subsystem in quasi-two-dimensional systems, and in particular, in quantum semiconductor films.

    Chemical potential and internal energy of a noninteracting Fermi gas at low temperature are evaluated using the Sommerfeld method in the fractional-and quasi-two-dimensional spaces in Ref. [34]. The effects of low dimensionality on the thermodynamics of a Fermi gas trapped by isotropic power law potentials are analyzed in Ref. [38].

    Simultaneously it is well known that along with size quantization, one of the powerful external modulating factors is an external homogeneous electrostatic field. In the case of a semiconductor film, the situation where the field is directed along the quantization direction is of greatest physical interest. In this case, the states of the discrete spectrum of charge carriers undergo an additional, field modulation. This leads to a change in the kinetic, optical, and a number of other properties of the semiconductor film [39,40,41,42,43,44]. Naturally, the external electrostatic field exerts its significant influence also on the statistical properties of a quantum semiconductor film.

    In the present paper, the influence of a strong external lateral homogeneous electrostatic field on the statistical properties of the electronic subsystem in a quantum narrow-band semiconductor film is theoretically considered, when a regime of "strong quantization" is realized for charge carriers in a film.


    2. Single-electron states in the film in the presence of strong electrostatic field

    As already noted, in this paper we investigate the case in which a regime of "strong quantization" is realized in a semiconductor film for charge carriers. For this, as is known, at least the following two important physical conditions must be satisfied [1,7,43]:

    (a) The film thickness (L) must be much less than the Bohr radius of the bulk exciton of the film material (aex)

    ${L^2} \ll a_{ex}^2$ (1)

    (b) The distance between the levels of the size quantization $\left( {\Delta {\varepsilon _{n, n + 1}}} \right)$ must significantly exceed the energy of the thermal motion of charge carriers $\left( {{k_B}T} \right)$:

    $\Delta {\varepsilon _{n, n + 1}} \gg {k_B}T$ (2)

    Here ${k_B}$ is Boltzmann constant and T is the absolute temperature of the sample.

    The conditions (1) and (2) dictate the choice of the material under investigation, respectively.

    In a number of narrow-gap semiconductors, owing to the large static permittivity and the small effective mass of charge carriers, the Bohr radius of the bulk exciton has a value of the order of several tens of nanometers: PbS (Eg = 0.32 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.04$, aex = 20 nm, PbSe (Eg = 0.27 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.08$, aex = 47 nm, PbTe (Eg = 0.41 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.04$, aex = 150 nm, HgSe (Eg = 0.24 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.016$, aex = 52 nm, HgS (Eg = 0.5 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.036$, aex = 50 nm, InAs (Eg = 0.354 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.023$, aex = 35 nm, InSb (Eg = 0.18 eV) ${{m_e^ * } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{m_e^ * } {{m_0}}}} \right. } {{m_0}}} = 0.014$, aex = 60 nm. Here ${m_e^ * } $ is the effective mass of electron, m0 is the mass of a free electron, Eg is the width of the band gap of a bulk sample (data are taken from Refs. [45,46,47,48]).

    At a film thickness L~10 nm, the condition (1) for such semiconductors begins with sufficient accuracy even at relatively high temperatures, when the temperature of the system T varies, for example, from 100 to 300 K. The energy of the thermal motion of the electrons varies in this case, respectively, in the range from 10 to 25 meV.

    We now consider single-particle states in a quantizing film in the presence of a strong transverse electrostatic field. Тhe quantizing film is approximated by the model of an infinitely deep rectangular potential well along the direction of quantization (z) [1,7,42]. Such a choice of the form of the model potential of a film is justified by the following physical factors. Firstly, a strong external field creates a deep triangular trap for the particle in the lower part of the well. Secondly, we are interested in the lower levels of quantization. But those levels in this case will be located precisely in the triangular part of the quantum well.

    Then, we can write for the potential energy of the electron in the presence of an external electric field $\vec F = \vec F\left( {0;0;F} \right)$ in the film:

    $U\left( {z, F} \right) = \left\{ ;z0,zL|e|Fz;0zL
    \right.$
    (3)

    Here e is the charge of an electron, L is the thickness of a film.

    In the absence of an external field the energy spectrum of one-electron states in the approximation of an isotropic effective mass, is given by the following expression [1,42]:

    ${\varepsilon _n}\left( {{p_x}, {p_y}} \right) = \frac{{p_x^2 + p_y^2}}{{2m_e^ * }} + \frac{{{\pi ^2}{\hbar ^2}{n^2}}}{{2m_e^ * {L^2}}} \equiv \varepsilon \left( {{p_x}, {p_y}} \right) + {\varepsilon _1}{n^2};\;n = 1, 2, ...$ (4)

    Here ${p_x}, {p_y}$ are the components of the quasi-momentum of the particle in the plane of the film.

    We regard the external field as strong. Physically, this implies that the energy received by the particle from the field within the film ($\left| e \right|FL$) is much larger than the particle's size quantization energy (${\varepsilon _1}$):

    $\left| e \right|FL > > {\varepsilon _1} = {{{\pi ^2}{\hbar ^2}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\pi ^2}{\hbar ^2}} {2m_e^ * {L^2}}}} \right. } {2m_e^ * {L^2}}}$ (5)

    It is shown in Ref. [42], that the strong-field condition with sufficient accuracy can be written as follows

    $\left| e \right|FL \ge 10\varepsilon _1^{}$ (6)

    In the case of an InAs film L = 10 nm, we have for ${\varepsilon _1}:{\varepsilon _1} \sim 0.1635$ eV. Accordingly, the condition (6) for the InAs film will be satisfied if the potential difference between the planes of the film is as follows: $\Delta \varphi \ge 1.5$ V.

    When the condition (5) is satisfied, the energy spectrum of a particle in a film in the presence of potential Eq 3 can be determined by a variation method [42]. Taking into account that it is the lower sub-bands that are important for the manifestation of the quantum size effect, we give the expressions obtained for the first two electronic levels in the film in the presence of a strong electrostatic field:

    ${\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right) \simeq 2.345{\left( {\frac{{{\hbar ^2}{e^2}{F^2}}}{{2m_e^ * }}} \right)^{{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 3}} \right. } 3}}} = 1.093{\varepsilon _{1, e}}{\left( {\frac{{\left| e \right|FL}}{{{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right)^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}} \equiv 1.093{\varepsilon _{1, e}}{\eta ^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}}$ (7)
    ${\varepsilon _{2, e}}\left( F \right) \simeq 4.109{\left( {\frac{{{\hbar ^2}{e^2}{F^2}}}{{2m_e^ * }}} \right)^{{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 3}} \right. } 3}}} = 1.931{\varepsilon _{1, e}}{\left( {\frac{{\left| e \right|FL}}{{{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right)^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}} \equiv 1.931{\varepsilon _{1, e}}{\eta ^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}}$ (8)

    Note that the conditions (5) and (6) are, in fact, also the quasi-classical conditions for the potential Eq 3. In view of this circumstance, the energy spectrum of the particle motion in the field (Eq 3) under the conditions (5) and (6) can also be determined from the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization conditions [49]:

    $\pi \hbar \left( {l + \frac{3}{4}} \right) = \sqrt {2{m^ * }} \int\limits_0^{{z_0}} {\sqrt {{\varepsilon _l}\left( F \right) - \left| e \right|Fz} } dz;\;\left( {{z_0} = {{{\varepsilon _l}\left( F \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\varepsilon _l}\left( F \right)} {\left| e \right|F}}} \right. } {\left| e \right|F}}} \right);$ (9)

    Hence we obtain:

    ${\varepsilon _l}\left( F \right) = {\left[{\frac{3}{2}\frac{{\pi \hbar \left| e \right|F}}{{\sqrt {2{m^ * }} }}\left( {l + \frac{3}{4}} \right)} \right]^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}};\;\;l = 0, 1, 2, ...$ (10)

    It is easy to see that both approaches in this case give very similar results. We obtain from the Eq 9:

    ${\varepsilon _{l = 0}}\left( F \right) = 2.327{\left( {\frac{{{\hbar ^2}{e^2}{F^2}}}{{2{m^ * }}}} \right)^{{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 3}} \right. } 3}}};\;\;{\varepsilon _{l = 1}}\left( F \right) = 4.084{\left( {\frac{{{\hbar ^2}{e^2}{F^2}}}{{2{m^ * }}}} \right)^{{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 3}} \right. } 3}}}$ (11)

    We do not write out the shape of the envelope wave functions, since in the future they will not be needed.

    Let us now consider the statistical characteristics of the electron-hole subsystem in a film in the presence of an external field.

    All calculations and estimates will be made using the example of an InAs $(m_e^ * \equiv {m_e} = 0.023{m_0}, \;m_{lh}^ * = {m_{lh}} = 0.026{m_0}, \;m_{hh}^ * = {m_{hh}} = 0.41{m_0}, \;\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} = 0.354eV)$ quantum film at a film thickness L = 1 nm. In such a sample, the conditions (1) and (2) are satisfied with great accuracy.

    The melting temperature of the InAs crystal is equal to ${T_0} = 1215$ K, so that over the entire temperature range of this crystal ($T \in \left[{0, {T_0}} \right]$) this semiconductor is non-degenerate: even when T~1000 K, ${k_B}T = 0.1032eV < {E_g} = 0.354eV.$

    We also note that the properties of InAs quantum films are being intensively studied at the present time (for example, [49,50]) and the study proposed here is of real interest from this point of view.


    3. The statistical characteristics of charge carriers in a semiconductor film in the presence of a strong electrostatic field

    In the presence of an external field with a strength F for the energy spectrum of an electron in general form, we can now write:

    ${\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right) = \frac{{{{\vec p}^2}}}{{2m_e^ * }} + {\varepsilon _n}\left( F \right) = \varepsilon \left( {\vec p} \right) + {\varepsilon _n}\left( F \right) \equiv \varepsilon ;\;\vec p = \vec p\left( {{p_x}, {p_y}, 0} \right)$ (12)

    Here the energy ${\varepsilon _n}\left( F \right)$ is given by the Eqs 7–10.

    The general form of Fermi-Dirac distribution function for charge carriers in this case is as follows:

    $f\left( {{\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)} \right) = {\left[{1 + \exp \frac{{{\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)-\mu }}{{{k_B}T}}} \right]^{ - 1}}$ (13)

    Here $\mu $ is the chemical potential of charge carriers' sub-system.

    The effect of size quantization, as already noted, manifests itself most effectively in the conditions when the fewest possible sub-bands are filled. Therefore, we confine ourselves here to considering the filling of only the first two size quantization sub-bands in the presence of an external field.

    In the case of the dispersion law from Eq 12, the normalization condition for the distribution function in Eq 13 for electrons and holes is represented in the following forms, respectively:

    ${N_e} = \sum\limits_{\vec p, {n_e}} {f\left( {{\varepsilon _{{n_e}}}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)} \right);\;\;} {\rho _e} = \frac{{{N_e}}}{V} = \frac{{m_e^ * }}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}L}}\sum\limits_{{n_e}} {\int\limits_{{\varepsilon _{{n_e}}}\left( F \right)}^\infty {\frac{{d{\varepsilon _e}{\kern 1pt} \Theta \left( {{\varepsilon _e} - {\varepsilon _{{n_e}}}\left( F \right)} \right)}}{{1 + \exp \left[{{{\left( {{\varepsilon _e}-\mu } \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {{\varepsilon _e}-\mu } \right)} {{k_B}T}}} \right. } {{k_B}T}}} \right]}}} } \;\;\;$ (14)
    ${N_h} = \sum\limits_{\vec p, {n_h}} {f\left( {{\varepsilon _{{n_h}}}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)} \right);\;\;} {\rho _h} = \frac{{{N_h}}}{V} = \frac{{m_h^ * }}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}L}}\sum\limits_{{n_h}} {\int\limits_{{\varepsilon _{{n_h}}}\left( F \right)}^\infty {\frac{{d{\varepsilon _h}{\kern 1pt} \Theta \left( {{\varepsilon _h} - {\varepsilon _{{n_h}}}\left( F \right)} \right)}}{{1 + \exp \left[{{{\left( {\mu-{\varepsilon _h}} \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {\mu-{\varepsilon _h}} \right)} {{k_B}T}}} \right. } {{k_B}T}}} \right]}}} } \;\;\;$ (15)

    Here and below, the index e corresponds to the electronic states, and h to states of the holes, ${N_{e\left( h \right)}}$ is the number of particles, ${\rho _{e\left( h \right)}}$ is the carrier concentration, and $V = SL$ is the volume of the system for area $S$ and thickness $ L$, and $\Theta \left( x \right)$ is the Heaviside step function.

    Let us now turn to the calculation of the statistical characteristics of the quasi-two-dimensional sample in question.


    3.1. Chemical potential and concentration of charge carriers in the film in the presence of external field

    We will consider an intrinsic semiconductor with a standard parabolic dispersion law for carriers of the form Eq 12 and confine ourselves to the framework of a simple two-band model.In this case, the splitting of the valence band into bands of heavy (hh) and light (lh) holes will be taken into account. It takes place in the semiconductors cited above, including in InAs.


    3.1.1. Only the first sub-band of size quantization is filled

    As the energy reference point we take the bottom of the first electronic sub-band of size quantization. Then, if only the first sub-band is filled, for the corresponding distribution functions ${f_{e, h}}$ we have:

    ${f_e}\left( {{\varepsilon _e}} \right) = {\left[{1 + \exp \frac{{{\varepsilon _e}-\mu }}{{{k_B}T}}} \right]^{ - 1}};\;\;{\varepsilon _e} = \frac{{{p^2}}}{{2m_e^ * }}$ (16)
    ${f_h}\left( {{\varepsilon _h}} \right) = {\left[{1 + \exp \frac{{\mu-{\varepsilon _h}}}{{{k_B}T}}} \right]^{ - 1}};\quad {\varepsilon _h} = - {\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right) - \varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} - {\varepsilon _{1, h}}\left( F \right) - \frac{{{p^2}}}{{2m_h^ * }}$ (17)

    Here $\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}$ is the width of band gap of a bulk sample.

    We substitute the distribution functions Eqs 16 and 17 into Eqs 14 and 15, and use after that the electroneutrality condition of the sample:

    $ρe=ρlh+ρhh;(ρe=mekBTπ2Lln[1+eμ1/μ1kBTkBT];ρv=mvkBTπ2Lln[1+exp(μ1+ε(0)g+ε1,e(F)+ε1,v(F)kBT)])
    $
    (18)

    Here $v = lh;hh$, and the index 1 for a chemical potential means that only the first sub-band of size quantization is filled. To determine the chemical potential of charge carriers of a film when only the first sub-band is filled $\left( {{\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)} \right)$, we obtain the following equation:

    $meln[1+expμ1kBT]=mlhln[1+exp(μ1+ε1,e(F)+ε1,lh(F)+ε(0)gkBT)]+mhhln[1+exp(μ1+ε1,e(F)+ε1,hh(F)+ε(0)gkBT)]
    $
    (19)

    Table 1 lists the values of the chemical potential (in dimensionless units ${y_1} = {{{\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)} {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}} \right. } {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}$) of a narrow-gap InAs semiconductor film for different values of the sample temperature and external field at a film thickness L = 10 nm.

    Table 1. The values of the chemical potential ${\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)$ of the InAs (L = 10 nm) film at different values of the sample temperature and the external field strength, when only the first size-quantized sub-band is filled.
    T (K)
    0 50 100 300 600 1000
    ${y_1} = - {{{\mu _1}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\mu _1}} {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}} \right. } {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}$ $ \eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}} = 0$ 0.7479 0.7271 0.7095 0.6399 0.5341 0.3819
    $\eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}} = 10$ 2.1298 2.1033 2.0859 2.0167 1.9122 1.7714
    $\eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}} = 30$ 3.8288 3.8146 3.7996 3.7398 3.6633 3.5226
    $\eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}} = 40$ 4.5912 4.5677 4.5503 4.4807 4.3762 4.2356
    $\eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, e}}}} = 50$ 5.4951 5.4658 5.4346 5.3104 5.1418 4.8909
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The results are obtained by numerical solution of Eq 19.

    As we see, the results of solving Eq 19 clearly show the following:

    (a) The chemical potential of the film, when only the first sub-band is filled, in the absence of the field takes its largest absolute negative value at absolute zero.With the increase in temperature ${\mu _1}$ decreasing in modulus, approaches linearly to the zero energy reference level, i.e., to the bottom of the first film sub-band of the conduction band.

    (b) Under the influence of an external field the maximum modular value of the chemical potential ${\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)$ increases. This is due to the effective broadening of band gap of the sample under the influence of an external field.

    (с) At a fixed value of the temperature, the value of the chemical potential is the greater in magnitude, the greater is the intensity of the external field.

    (d) In the presence of a field, the chemical potential also increases linearly with increasing the temperature, again approaching the bottom of the conduction band.

    Figure 1 shows the graphical dependence ${y_1}\left( T \right) = {{{\mu _1}(T, F)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\mu _1}(T, F)} {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}} \right. } {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}$ for different values of the external field $\eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, c}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, c}}}}$.

    Figure 1. The dependence ${y_1}\left( T \right) = {{{\mu _1}(T, F)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\mu _1}(T, F)} {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}} \right. } {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}$ for values of the external field $\eta = {{eFL} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{eFL} {{\varepsilon _{1, c}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{1, c}}}} = 0;\, 10;\, 30;50;\;\left( {x = {{{k_B}T} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{k_B}T} {\varepsilon _g^{(0)}}}} \right. } {\varepsilon _g^{(0)}}}} \right)$.

    The same results can also be obtained analytically.For this it is necessary to take into account that over the entire temperature range of the existence of the InAs crystal it can be regarded as a nondegenerate semiconductor with great accuracy. Using the approximate formula

    $\ln (1 + x){|_{x \ll 1}}\sim x$ (20)

    from Eq 19 we arrive to the following analytical expression for the chemical potential:

    $μ1(T,F)=ε(0)g+ε1,e(F)+ε1,hh(F)2+kBT2{lnmhhme+mlhmhhexp[ε1,lh(F)ε1,hh(F)kBT]}ε(0)g+ε1,e(F)+ε1,hh(F)2+kBT2lnmhhme
    $
    (21)

    It is easy to see that for the film thickness L = 10 nm, the results in Table 1 and, accordingly, the graphs of Figure 1 are also obtained from Eq 21. In the intrinsic semiconductor, as is known, the chemical potential of electrons and holes is not a function of the concentration (density) of charge carriers.

    However, knowing the chemical potential of the system, it is possible to determine the dependence of the carrier concentration (density) on temperature and in this case, also the dependence on the magnitude of the external field.

    Indeed, substituting the value of ${\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)$ from Eq 21 into Eq 18, we obtain for the concentration of charge carriers:

    $\begin{array}{l}
    \\
    \left. \begin{array}{l}
    {\rho _{1, e}} = \frac{{{m_e}{k_B}T}}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}L}}\ln \left\{ {1 + {{\left( {\frac{{{m_{hh}}}}{{{m_e}}}} \right)}^{{1 \mathord{\left/
     {\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
     } 2}}}\exp \left[{-\frac{{\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} + {\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right) + {\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}} \right]} \right\}\\
    {\rho _{1, lh}} = \frac{{{m_{lh}}{k_B}T}}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}L}}\ln \left\{ {1 + {{\left( {\frac{{{m_e}}}{{{m_{hh}}}}} \right)}^{{1 \mathord{\left/
     {\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
     } 2}}}\exp \left[{-\frac{{\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} + {\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right) + {\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}-\frac{{{\varepsilon _{1, lh}}\left( F \right)-{\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{{k_B}T}}} \right]} \right\}\\
    \;{\rho _{1, hh}} = \frac{{{m_{hh}}{k_B}T}}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}L}}\ln \left\{ {1 + {{\left( {\frac{{{m_e}}}{{{m_{hh}}}}} \right)}^{{1 \mathord{\left/
     {\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
     } 2}}}\exp \left[{-\frac{{\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} + {\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right) + {\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}} \right]} \right\}
    \end{array}
    \right\} \end{array}$
    (22)

    As we see, under the considered conditions and in the approximation Eq 20, the contribution of light holes to the total concentration of positive charge carriers is close to zero, when only the first sub-band of size quantization is filled.

    So, if special accuracy is not required, then in calculations one can put:

    ${\rho _{1, lh}} \approx 0, \;{\rho _{1, e}} = {\rho _{1, hh}} \approx \frac{{\sqrt {{m_e}{m_{hh}}} }}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}L}}{k_B}T\exp \left[{-\frac{{\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} + {\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right) + {\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}} \right]$ (23)

    3.1.2. The first and second sub-bands are filled

    To determine the chemical potential $\left( {{\mu _2}} \right)$ of the film, when the first and second sub-bands are filled, we now arrive to the following equation (by using Eqs 14, 15 and 18):

    $meln{[1+expμ2kBT][1+expμ2ε2,e(F)+ε1,e(F)kBT]}=mlhln{[1+exp(μ2+ε1,e(F)+ε1,lh(F)+ε(0)gkBT)][1+exp(μ2+ε1,e(F)+ε2,lh(F)+ε(0)gkBT)]}+mhhln{[1+exp(μ2+ε1,e(F)+ε1,hh(F)+ε(0)gkBT)][1+exp(μ2+ε1,e(F)+ε2,hh(F)+ε(0)gkBT)]}
    $
    (24)

    The numerical solution of this equation leads for to the ${\mu _2}\left( {T, F} \right)$ results that practically coincide with those from Table 1. If we again take advantage of the fact that the semiconductor under consideration is nondegenerate, then we obtain the following equation for ${\mu _2}\left( {T, F} \right)$:

    $μ2(T,F)=ε(0)g+ε1,e(F)+ε1,hh(F)2+kBT2lnmhhme+kBT2ln[1+exp(ε2,hh(F)ε1,hh(F)kBT)+mlhmhhexp(ε1,lh(F)ε1,hh(F)kBT)]
    $
    (25)

    The third term in square brackets can simply be neglected because of its apparent smallness with respect to unity, even in the absence of an external field.

    The remaining exponent in the last term makes sense only when F = 0. In the presence of a strong field, this term also tends to zero, i.e., we arrive at the following result:

    ${\mu _2}\left( {T, F} \right) \sim {\mu _1}\left( {T, F} \right)$ (26)

    For carriers' concentrations in the film, when the first and second sub-bands are filled we obtain, respectively:

    $\left. ρtot,e=ρ1,e+ρ2,e;ρ2,e=mekBTπ2Lln{1+mhhmeexp[εg,1(F)2kBTε2,c(F)ε1,c(F)kBT]}ρtot,lh=ρ1,lh+ρ2,lh;ρ2,lh=mlhkBTπ2Lln{1+memhhexp[εg,1(F)2kBTε2,lh(F)ε1,hh(F)kBT]}ρtot,hh=ρ1,hh+ρ2,hh;ρ2,hh=mhhkBTπ2Lln{1+memhhexp[εg,1(F)2kBTε2,hh(F)ε1,hh(F)kBT]}εg,1(F)=ε(0)g+ε1,e(F)+ε1,hh(F)
    \right\}$
    (27)

    Comparison of the expressions for ${\rho _1}$ and ${\rho _2}$ shows that the concentration of each type of carrier in the second sub-band of size quantization is less than the corresponding concentration in the first sub-band.


    3.2. Energy and heat capacity of charge carriers in a film in the presence of an external field

    For the energy of the system of charge carriers we can write in general form:

    $E = \sum\limits_{\vec p, n} {{\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)f\left( {{\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)} \right)} $ (28)

    Here, the particle energy ${\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)$ and the distribution function $f\left( {{\varepsilon _n}\left( {\vec p, F} \right)} \right)$ are given by Eqs 12 and 13, respectively.

    Let us proceed to a concrete calculation of the energy and heat capacity of charge carriers in a film in the presence of an external field.


    3.2.1. Only the first sub-band is filled

    It was shown above Eq 22 that the concentration of light holes is negligible compared to the concentrations of electrons and heavy holes. Accordingly, we will confine ourselves here to calculating the energy and the heat capacity only for electrons and heavy holes. From Eq 28, taking into account Eqs 7, 8, and 14–17, for the energy (E) and heat capacity (C) of these carriers, we obtain, respectively:

    $\left. E1E1,e+E1,hh;E1,e=(mhhme)1/122(kBT)2Sπ2exp[εg,1(F)2kBT]E1,hh=(mhhme)1/122(kBT)Sπ2[εg,1(F)+kBT]exp[εg,1(F)2kBT]
    \right\}$
    (29)
    $\left. C=(ET)V;C1C1,e+C1,hh;C1,e=(mhhme)1/122kBSπ2[2kBT+εg,1(F)2]exp[εg,1(F)2kBT]C1,hh=(mhhme)1/122kBSπ2{εg,1(F)+2kBT+εg,1(F)[εg,1(F)+kBT]2kBT}exp[εg,1(F)2kBT]
    \right\}$
    (30)

    3.2.2. The first and second sub-bands are filled

    Using the value of ${\mu _2}(T, F)$ from the Eqs 25 and 26, for the energy and heat capacity of the charge carriers from the second sub-band of size quantization, we get:

    $\left. E2,e=(mhhme)1/122(kBT)Sπ2[ε2,e(F)ε1,e(F)+kBT]exp[εg,1(F)2kBTε2,e(F)ε1,e(F)kBT]E2,hh=(mhhme)1/122(kBT)Sπ2[εg,1(F)+ε2,hh(F)ε1,hh(F)+kBT]×exp[εg,1(F)2kBTε2,hh(F)ε1,hh(F)kBT]
    \right\}$
    (31)
    $\left. \begin{array}{l}
    {C_{2, e}} = \frac{{{{\left( {{m_{hh}}{m_e}} \right)}^{{1 \mathord{\left/
     {\vphantom {1 2}} \right.
     } 2}}}S{k_B}}}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}}}\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
    \frac{{\left[{{\varepsilon _{2, e}}(F)-{\varepsilon _{1, e}}(F) + {k_B}T} \right]\left[{{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}\left( F \right) + 2{\varepsilon _{2, e}}(F)-2{\varepsilon _{1, e}}(F)} \right]}}{{2{k_B}T}} + \\
    \left[{{\varepsilon _{2, e}}(F)-{\varepsilon _{1, e}}(F) + 2{k_B}T} \right]
    \end{array}
    \right\}\\ \times \exp \left[{-\frac{{{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}-\frac{{{\varepsilon _{2, e}}(F)-{\varepsilon _{1, e}}(F)}}{{{k_B}T}}} \right]\\ \\ {C_{2, hh}} = \frac{{{{\left( {{m_{hh}}{m_e}} \right)}^{{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 2}} \right. } 2}}}S{k_B}}}{{\pi {\hbar ^2}}}\left\{ [εg,1(F)+Δ12,hh(F)+kBT][εg,1(F)+2Δ12,hh(F)]2kBT+[εg,1(F)+Δ12,hh(F)+2kBT]
    \right\}\\ \times \exp \left[{-\frac{{{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}-\frac{{{\Delta _{12, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{{k_B}T}}} \right];\;\;\;{\Delta _{12, hh}}\left( F \right) = {\varepsilon _{2, hh}}\left( F \right) - {\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right) \end{array} \right\}$
    (32)

    The total energy and total heat capacity of electrons and holes in the sample will be expressed by the sum of Eqs 29–32, respectively. Let us discuss now the results obtained in this paper.


    4. Results and discussions

    In the quantized film, as it is well known, due to the quantum size effect, an effective broadening of band gap of the sample takes place:

    $\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} \to {\varepsilon _g}\left( L \right) = \varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} + \varepsilon _{1, e}^{}\left( L \right) + \varepsilon _{1, v}^{}\left( L \right);\;\, {\Delta _g}\left( L \right) = {\varepsilon _g}\left( L \right) - \varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)} = \varepsilon _{1, e}^{}\left( L \right) + \varepsilon _{1, v}^{}\left( L \right)$ (33)

    For a fixed film thickness, under the influence of the external field, there is an additional broadening of band gap of the sample with respect to its previous broadening.

    As in the semiconductor InAs, ${m_{hh}} \gg {m_{lh}}$, from the valence band only heavy holes will contribute to this broadening:

    ${\varepsilon _g}\left( {L, F} \right) - {\varepsilon _g}\left( {L, F = 0} \right) \equiv {\Delta _g}\left( F \right) = \left[{{\varepsilon _{1, c}}\left( F \right)-\varepsilon _{1, c}^{}\left( L \right)} \right] + \left[{{\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)-\varepsilon _{1, hh}^{}(F)} \right]$ (34)

    According to Eqs 7, 8, 10 and 11 with the increase in the external field, this broadening increases according to the law у~x2/3:

    ${\Delta _g}\left( F \right) \sim {F^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}}$ (35)

    As we can see, the action of the external field actually substitutes the process of reducing the thickness of the film. This process naturally has a reasonable technological limit. By superimposing an external field, it becomes possible for a given thickness of the film to vary the energy of the quantized motion of the charge carriers in a controlled manner and, accordingly, to vary the width of the band gap of the sample in a controlled manner.

    The chemical potential of a system of electrons and holes depends explicitly on the external field.

    According to the Eqs 21, 25 and 26 remaining negative in sign, with the increase in the field it increases in absolute value ($ \sim {F^{{2 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {2 3}} \right. } 3}}}$).

    Both in the absence and in the presence of an external field, the chemical potential of the electrons and holes decrease by absolute value with the increase in the temperature. In the system under consideration, the contribution of light holes in the statistical characteristics of electrons and holes is negligible.

    This is explained by the fact that in the system under consideration, between the first levels of heavy and light holes, there is a significant energy gap (${\Delta _{lh, hh}}(F = 0) = 0.1359eV$) and, in the presence of size quantization, light holes do not participate in the formation of a new forbidden band. Physically, this is quite understandable: the particles tend to occupy the lowest possible energy states, and such are the levels of the size quantization of heavy holes in this case.

    We note that in the case of a bulk sample, where the energies of the sub-bands of heavy and light holes in the center of the Brillouin zone coincide, the secondary role of light holes is not so strongly pronounced.

    For example, for the chemical potential of a bulk InAs sample, we obtain:

    ${\mu ^{3D}} \approx - \frac{{\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}{2} + \frac{{3{k_B}T}}{4}\ln \frac{{{m_{hh}}}}{{{m_e}}} + \frac{{{k_B}T}}{2}\ln \left[{1 + {{\left( {\frac{{{m_{lh}}}}{{{m_{hh}}}}} \right)}^{{3 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {3 2}} \right. } 2}}}} \right]$ (36)

    Hence it is clear that in the 3D case the contribution of light holes is not as small as in the quasi-two-dimensional case.

    It follows from Eqs 22 and 27 that the concentration of free charge carriers increases with the increase in temperature. At fixed values of the temperature and the external field, the carriers' concentration is maximal for the first sub-band. As the sub-band number increases, the concentration decreases. At a fixed temperature, an increase in the external field leads to a decrease in the concentration of free carriers. This is due to an increase in the width of the band gap under the action of the external field. This makes it possible, by changing the external field, to regulate the concentration of free carriers in the quasi-two-dimensional system under consideration. I.e., with the aid of an external field, we are able to control the degree of population of the sub-bands of the quantized motion of free charge carriers. Since the energy and heat capacity of a system are determined by the number of particles, the concentration behavior mentioned above also determines the behavior of the energy and heat capacity of the system of charge carriers in the film in the presence of an external field.

    The contribution of the second sub-band to the energy and heat capacity of electrons and holes is much less (respectively, $\exp \left[{-\frac{{{\varepsilon _{2, e}}\left( F \right)-{\varepsilon _{1, e}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}} \right]$ and $\exp \left[{-\frac{{{\varepsilon _{2, hh}}\left( F \right)-{\varepsilon _{1, hh}}\left( F \right)}}{{2{k_B}T}}} \right]$ times) than the contribution of the first sub-band.

    As we see, the result of the influence of an external strong electric field on the statistical characteristics of a quantum semiconductor film is determined, mainly, by the influence of this field on the first film sub-band.

    In particular, as can be seen from Eqs 29–32, the decisive factor for determining the values of the energy and heat capacity of an electron-hole subsystem in a film is the factor $\exp \left[{-{{{\varepsilon _g}\left( {F, L} \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\varepsilon _g}\left( {F, L} \right)} {2{k_B}T}}} \right. } {2{k_B}T}}} \right]$. Here ${\varepsilon _g}\left( {F, L} \right)$ is the value of the band gap of the sample, taking into account its effective broadening under the action of size quantization and the external field (see Eqs 7, 8, 33 and 34). It is clear that with increasing of ${\varepsilon _g}\left( {F, L} \right)$ the values of the energy and heat capacity at a given fixed temperature will decrease.

    The dependence of the energy of the electron-hole subsystem for the bulk InAs semiconductor (Figure 2a) and for the InAs film (L = 10 nm) in the temperature range from 0 to 600 K for the different values of the external field is shown (Figures 2b2d).

    Figure 2. Curve of the function (a) ${g_1}\left( x \right) = 4.4{x^{{3 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {3 2}} \right. } 2}}}\left( {1 + 3x} \right)\exp \left( { - {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {2x}}} \right. } {2x}}} \right);\;$ (bulk sample: $x = {{{k_B}T} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{k_B}T} {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}}} \right. } {\varepsilon _g^{\left( 0 \right)}}};\;x \in \left[{0, 0.1458} \right]$). (b) ${g_2}\left( x \right) = 1.98x\left( {1 + 2x} \right)\exp \left( { - {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {2x}}} \right. } {2x}}} \right);\;$ (InAs film, L = 10 nm, $x = {{{k_B}T} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{k_B}T} {{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}}};\;x \in \left[{0, 0.097} \right]$, the external field is absent). (c) ${g_3}\left( x \right) = 14.67x\left( {1 + 2x} \right)\exp \left( { - {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {2x}}} \right. } {2x}}} \right);\;$ (InAs film, L = 10 nm, the external field is present: $\eta = 10;\;x = {{{k_B}T} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{k_B}T} {{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}}}\left( F \right);\;x \in \left[{0, 0.0344} \right]$). (d) ${g_4}\left( x \right) = 48.87x\left( {1 + 2x} \right)\exp \left( { - {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {2x}}} \right. } {2x}}} \right);\;$ (InAs film, L = 10 nm, the external field is present: $\eta = 30;\;x = {{{k_B}T} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{k_B}T} {{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}}}} \right. } {{\varepsilon _{g, 1}}}}\left( F \right);\;x \in \left[{0, 0.019} \right]$).

    A similar dependence also holds for the heat capacity of the electron-hole sub-system in a semiconductor film.

    In the end, we note that all the calculations and conclusions that have been made are also applicable to semiconductor quasi-two-dimensional structures noted at the beginning of this article.


    5. Conclusions

    In terms of the effect on single-electron states, the presence of an external field makes it possible, for a fixed film thickness and a certain temperature, to obtain for the charge carriers energies unattainable by reducing the film thickness. Simultaneously, by using an external field, the position of the size quantization levels can be moved in a controlled manner.

    In terms of the effect on the thermodynamic properties of the electron-hole subsystem, the presence of an external field makes it possible to vary the width of the forbidden band of the sample in a controlled manner. That is, an external strong electrostatic field makes it possible to control the values of such fundamental quantities of a system of free charge carriers in a film as their concentration, energy and heat capacity.


    Acknowledgments

    The author wants to express their gratitude to David Hayrapetyan and Vram Mughnetsyan for helping in numerical calculations.


    Conflict of interest

    Тhere is no conflict of interest


    [1] Miller BW, Morisette JT (2014) Integrating research tools to support resource management under climate change. Ecol Soc 19: 41.
    [2] Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: Offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8: 993-1009. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x
    [3] Sinclair SJ, White MD, Newell GR (2010) How useful are species distribution models for managing biodiversity under future climates? Ecol Soc 15: 8.
    [4] Daniel CJ, Frid L (2012) Predicting landscape vegetation dynamics using state-and-transition simulation models, In: Kerns BK, Shlisky AJ, Daniel CJ, technical editors, Proc First Landscape State-and-Transition Sim Model Conf, June 14–16, 2011, Portland, OR, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-869, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 5-22.
    [5] Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: Spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [6] Franklin J (2013) Species distribution models in conservation biogeography: Developments and challenges. Div Distr 19: 1217-1223. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12125
    [7] Dobrowski SZ, Thorne JH, Greenberg JA, et al. (2011) Modeling plant ranges over 75 years of climate change in California, USA: Temporal transferability and species traits. Ecol Monogr 81:241-257. doi: 10.1890/10-1325.1
    [8] Bell DM, Bradford JB, Lauenroth WK (2014) Early indicators of change: Divergent climate envelopes between tree life stages imply range shifts in the western United States. Global Ecol Biogeog 23: 168-180. doi: 10.1111/geb.12109
    [9] Stephenson NL (1998) Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: Biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. J Biogeogr 25: 855-870. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.00233.x
    [10] Benito-Garzón M, Ha-Duong M, Frascaria-Lacoste N, et al. (2013) Habitat restoration and climate change: Dealing with climate variability, incomplete data, and management decisions with tree translocations. Restor Ecol 21: 530-536. doi: 10.1111/rec.12032
    [11] Schwartz MW (2012) Using niche models with climate projections to inform conservation management decisions. Biol Cons 155: 149-156. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.011
    [12] Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SN, et al. (2011) Lessons learned while integrating habitat, dispersal, disturbance, and life-history traits into species habitat models under climate change. Ecosystems 14: 1005-1020. doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9456-4
    [13] Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-Meir I (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Manage 42: 266-274. doi: 10.2307/3899492
    [14] Bestelmeyer BT, Brown JR, Havstad KM, et al. (2003) Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. J Range Manage 56: 114-126. doi: 10.2307/4003894
    [15] Stringham TK, Krueger WC, Shaver PL (2001) States, transitions, and thresholds: Further refinement for rangeland applications. Special Report Number 1024, Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station: 1-15.
    [16] Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, et al. (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: A review. Ann Assoc American Geogr 93: 314-337. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.9302004
    [17] Li H, Reynolds JF (1997) Modeling effects of spatial pattern, drought, and grazing on rates of rangeland degradation: A combined Markov and cellular automaton approach, In: Quattrochi DA, Goodchild MF, editors, Scale in Remote Sensing and GIS, Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers,211-230.
    [18] Balzter H, Braun PW, Köhler W (1998) Cellular automata models for vegetation dynamics. Ecol Model 107: 113-125. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00202-0
    [19] Bestelmeyer BT, Goolsby DP, Archer SR (2011) Spatial perspectives in state-and-transition models: A missing link to land management? J Appl Ecol 48: 746-757. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01982.x
    [20] Forbis TA, Provencher L, Frid L, et al. (2006) Great Basin land management planning using ecological modeling. Environ Manage 38: 62-83. doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0089-2
    [21] Provencher L, Forbis TA, Frid L, et al. (2007) Comparing alternative management strategies of fire, grazing, and weed control using spatial modeling. Ecol Model 209: 249-263. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.06.030
    [22] Frid L, Wilmshurst JF (2009) Decision analysis to evaluate control strategies for Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) in Grasslands National Park of Canada. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 2: 324-336. doi: 10.1614/IPSM-09-006.1
    [23] Costanza JK, Hulcr J, Koch FH, et al. (2012) Simulating the effects of the southern pine beetle on regional dynamics 60 years into the future. Ecol Model 244: 93-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.037
    [24] Keane RE, Holsinger LM, Parsons RA, et al. (2008) Climate change effects on historical range and variability of two large landscapes in western Montana, USA. Forest Ecol Manage 254:375-389. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.013
    [25] Strand EK, Vierling LA, Bunting SC, et al. (2009) Quantifying successional rates in western aspen woodlands: Current conditions, future predictions. Forest Ecol Manage 257: 1705-1715. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.026
    [26] Halofsky JE, Hemstrom MA, Conklin DR, et al. (2013) Assessing potential climate change effects on vegetation using a linked model approach. Ecol Model 266: 131-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.07.003
    [27] Hemstrom MA, Halofsky JE, Conklin DR, et al. (2014) Developing climate-informed state-and-transition models, In: Halofsky JE, Creutzburg MK, Hemstrom MA, editors, Integrating Social, Economic, and Ecological Values Across Large Landscapes, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-896, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 175-202.
    [28] Yospin GI, Bridgham SD, Neilson RP, et al. (2014) A new model to simulate climate change impacts on forest succession for local land management. Ecol Appl 25:226-242.
    [29] Chang T, Hansen AJ, Piekielek N (2014) Patterns and variability of projected bioclimatic habitat for Pinus albicaulis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. PLoS ONE 9: e111669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111669
    [30] Whitlock C (1993) Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton and southern Yellowstone National Parks. Ecol Monogr 63: 173-198. doi: 10.2307/2937179
    [31] Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee Whitebark Pine Subcommittee (2011) Whitebark Pine Strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area. US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, and Grand Teton National Park.
    [32] Gibson K, Skov K, Kegley S, et al. (2008) Mountain pine beetle impacts in high-elevation five-needle pines: current trends and challenges. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection.
    [33] Larson ER, Kipfmueller KF (2012) Ecological disaster or the limits of observation? Reconciling modern declines with the long-term dynamics of whitebark pine communities. Geogr Compass 6:189-214.
    [34] Romme WH, Turner MG (1991) Implications of global climate change for biogeographic patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conserv Biol 5: 373-386. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00151.x
    [35] Bartlein PJ, Whitlock C, Shafer SL (1997) Future climate in the Yellowstone national park region and its potential impact on vegetation. Conserv Biol 11: 782-792. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95383.x
    [36] Schrag AM, Bunn AG, Graumlich LJ (2008) Influence of bioclimatic variables on tree‐line conifer distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Implications for species of conservation concern. J Biogeogr 35(4): 698-710.
    [37] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011) Whitebark pine to be designated a candidate for endangered species protection. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/Wyominges/Pages/Species/Findings/2011_WBP.html
    [38] Freire J (2012) Making computations and publications reproducible with VisTrails. Comput Sci Eng 14: 18-25. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2012.76
    [39] Morisette JT, Jarnevich CS, Holcombe TR, et al. (2013) VisTrails SAHM: Visualization and workflow management for species habitat modeling. Ecography 36: 129-135. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07815.x
    [40] Lockman IB, DeNitto GA, Courter A, et al. (2007) WLIS: The whitebarklimber pine information system and what it can do for you. In: Proceedings of the Conference Whitebark Pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective. Ashland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 146-147.
    [41] Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group (2011) Interagency Whitebark Pine Monitoring Protocol for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Version 1.1. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Bozeman, MT. Available from: http://fedgycc.org/documents/GYE.WBP.MonitoringProtocol.V1.1June2011.pdf
    [42] Smith WB (2002) FIA: Forest inventory and analysis: a national inventory and monitoring program. Environ Pollut 116: S233-S242. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00255-X
    [43] Gibson J, Moisen G, Frescino T, et al. (2014) Using publicly available forest inventory data in climate-based models of tree species distribution: Examining effects of true versus altered location coordinates. Ecosystems 17: 43-53. doi: 10.1007/s10021-013-9703-y
    [44] Drake BG, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Long SP (1997) More efficient plants: A consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annu Rev Plant Biol 48: 609-639. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609
    [45] Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17: 145-151. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x
    [46] Voldoire A, Sanchez-Gomez E, Salas y Mélia, et al. (2013) The CNRM-CM5. 1 global climate model: Description and basic evaluation. Clim Dynam 40: 2091-2121.
    [47] Martin GM, Bellouin N, Collins WJ, et al. (2011) The HadGEM2 family of met office unified model climate configurations. Geosci Model Dev 4: 723-757. doi: 10.5194/gmd-4-723-2011
    [48] Deser C, Phillips AS, Alexander MA, et al. (2014) Projecting North American climate over the next 50 years: Uncertainty due to internal variability. J Climate 27: 2271-2296. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00451.1
    [49] Apex Resource Management Solutions (2014) ST-Sim state-and-transition simulation model software. Available from: www.apexrms.com/stsm
    [50] Rollins MG (2009) LANDFIRE: A nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int J Wildland Fire 18: 235-249. doi: 10.1071/WF08088
    [51] Landenburger L, Lawrence RL, Podruzny S, et al. (2008) Mapping regional distribution of a single tree species: Whitebark Pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Sensors 8: 4983-4994. doi: 10.3390/s8084983
    [52] Aukema BH, Carroll AL, Zhu J, et al. (2006) Landscape level analysis of mountain pine beetle in British Columbia, Canada: Spatiotemporal development and spatial synchrony within the present outbreak. Ecography 29: 427-441. doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04445.x
    [53] An L, Linderman M, Qi J, et al. (2005) Exploring complexity in a human-environment system: An agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Ann Assoc American Geogr 95, 54-79.
    [54] Miller BW, Breckheimer I, McCleary AL, et al. (2010) Using stylized agent-based models for population-environment research: a case study from the Galápagos Islands. Popul Environ 31:401-426. doi: 10.1007/s11111-010-0110-4
    [55] Frid L, Hanna D, Korb N, et al. (2013) Evaluating alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 6: 48-59. doi: 10.1614/IPSM-D-11-00054.1
    [56] Frid L, Holcombe T, Morisette JT, et al. (2013) Using state-and-transition modeling to account for imperfect detection in invasive species management. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 6: 36-47. doi: 10.1614/IPSM-D-11-00065.1
    [57] Windrum P, Fagiolo G, Moneta A (2007) Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alternatives and prospects. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 10: 8.
    [58] Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263: 641-646. doi: 10.1126/science.263.5147.641
    [59] Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: 1453-1460. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106s61453
    [60] Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, et al. (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: Lessons from ecology. Science 310: 987-991. doi: 10.1126/science.1116681
    [61] Jørgensen SE (1986) Fundamentals of Ecological Modelling. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [62] Macfarlane WW, Logan JA, Kern WR (2009) Using the landscape assessment system (LAS) to assess mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of whitebark pine, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 2009. Project report prepared for the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Whitebark Pine Subcommittee, Jackson, WY.
    [63] Shanahan E, Irvine KM, Roberts D, et al. (2014) Status of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: A step-trend analysis comparing 2004-2007 to 2008- 2011. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GRYN/NRTR—2014/917. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service.
    [64] Régnière J, Bentz BJ (2007) Modeling cold tolerance in the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus pondersoae. J Insect Physiol 53: 559-572. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2007.02.007
    [65] Logan JA, Macfarlane WW, Wilcox L (2010) Whitebark pine vulnerability to climate-driven mountain pine beetle disturbance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecol Appl 20: 895-902. doi: 10.1890/09-0655.1
    [66] Keane RE (2001) Successional dynamics: Modeling an anthropogenic threat, In: Tomback DF, Arno SF, Keane RE, editors, Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press, 159-192.
    [67] Whitlock C, Millspaugh, SH (2001) A paleoecologic perspective on past plant invasions in Yellowstone. West N Am Naturalist 61: 316-327.
    [68] LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project) dataset. Available online at www.landfire.gov.
    [69] Teste FP, Lieffers VJ, Landhausser SM (2011) Viability of forest floor and canopy seed banks in Pinus contorta var. latifoia (Pinaceas) forests after a mountain pine beetle outbreak. American Journal of Botany 98: 630-637.
    [70] MTBS (Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity) dataset. Available from: at www.mtbs.gov.
    [71] USFS (United States Forest Service), Species life history information. Available from: www.fs.fed.us.
    [72] Johnson EA, Fryer GI (1996) Why Engelmann spruce does not have a persistent seed bank. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26: 872-878 doi: 10.1139/x26-095
    [73] Hatala JA, Crabtree, RL (2009) Modelling the spread of blister rust in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Nutcracker Notes, Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 16: 17-18.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7702) PDF downloads(1317) Cited by(15)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(9)  /  Tables(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog