GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Spatial representativeness  (1)
  • Vegetation indices  (1)
Document type
Publisher
Years
  • 1
    Publication Date: 2022-05-25
    Description: Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2016. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of John Wiley & Sons for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Global Change Biology 23 (2017): 2874-2886, doi: 10.1111/gcb.13590.
    Description: Accurate estimation of terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) remains a challenge despite its importance in the global carbon cycle. Chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) has been recently adopted to understand photosynthesis and its response to the environment, particularly with remote sensing data. However, it remains unclear how ChlF and photosynthesis are linked at different spatial scales across the growing season. We examined seasonal relationships between ChlF and photosynthesis at the leaf, canopy, and ecosystem scales, and explored how leaf-level ChlF was linked with canopy-scale solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) in a temperate deciduous forest at Harvard Forest, Massachusetts, USA. Our results show that ChlF captured the seasonal variations of photosynthesis with significant linear relationships between ChlF and photosynthesis across the growing season over different spatial scales (R2=0.73, 0.77 and 0.86 at leaf, canopy and satellite scales, respectively; p〈0.0001). We developed a model to estimate GPP from the tower-based measurement of SIF and leaf-level ChlF parameters. The estimation of GPP from this model agreed well with flux tower observations of GPP (R2=0.68; p〈0.0001), demonstrating the potential of SIF for modeling GPP. At the leaf scale, we found that leaf Fq’/Fm’, the fraction of absorbed photons that are used for photochemistry for a light adapted measurement from a pulse amplitude modulation fluorometer, was the best leaf fluorescence parameter to correlate with canopy-SIF yield (SIF/APAR, R2=0.79; p〈0.0001). We also found that canopy-SIF and SIF-derived GPP (GPPSIF) were strongly correlated to leaf-level biochemistry and canopy structure, including chlorophyll content (R2=0.65 for canopy-GPPSIF and chlorophyll content; p〈0.0001), leaf area index (LAI) (R2=0.35 for canopy-GPPSIF and LAI; p〈0.0001), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (R2=0.36 for canopy-GPPSIF and NDVI; p〈0.0001). Our results suggest that ChlF can be a powerful tool to track photosynthetic rates at leaf, canopy, and ecosystem scales.
    Description: This research was supported by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research Grant DE-SC0006951, National Science Foundation Grants DBI-959333 and AGS-1005663, and the University of Chicago and the MBL Lillie Research Innovation Award to J. Tang, National Science Foundation of China Grants (41671421) to Y. Zhang, and China Scholarship Council (CSC) to H. Yang.
    Description: 2017-12-14
    Keywords: Solar induced fluorescence ; Photosynthesis ; Gross primary production ; Chlorophyll ; Vegetation indices ; Carbon cycle
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Preprint
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2022-05-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Chu, H., Luo, X., Ouyang, Z., Chan, W. S., Dengel, S., Biraud, S. C., Torn, M. S., Metzger, S., Kumar, J., Arain, M. A., Arkebauer, T. J., Baldocchi, D., Bernacchi, C., Billesbach, D., Black, T. A., Blanken, P. D., Bohrer, G., Bracho, R., Brown, S., Brunsell, N. A., Chen, J., Chen, X., Clark, K., Desai, A. R., Duman, T., Durden, D., Fares, S., Forbrich, I., Gamon, J. A., Gough, C. M., Griffis, T., Helbig, M., Hollinger, D., Humphreys, E., Ikawa, H., Iwata, H., Ju, Y., Knowles, J. F., Knox, S. H., Kobayashi, H., Kolb, T., Law, B., Lee, X., Litvak, M., Liu, H., Munger, J. W., Noormets, A., Novick, K., Oberbauer, S. F., Oechel, W., Oikawa, P., Papuga, S. A., Pendall, E., Prajapati, P., Prueger, J., Quinton, W. L., Richardson, A. D., Russell, E. S., Scott, R. L., Starr, G., Staebler, R., Stoy, P. C., Stuart-Haentjens, E., Sonnentag, O., Sullivan, R. C., Suyker, A., Ueyama, M., Vargas, R., Wood, J. D., & Zona, D. Representativeness of eddy-covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 301, (2021): 108350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108350.
    Description: Large datasets of greenhouse gas and energy surface-atmosphere fluxes measured with the eddy-covariance technique (e.g., FLUXNET2015, AmeriFlux BASE) are widely used to benchmark models and remote-sensing products. This study addresses one of the major challenges facing model-data integration: To what spatial extent do flux measurements taken at individual eddy-covariance sites reflect model- or satellite-based grid cells? We evaluate flux footprints—the temporally dynamic source areas that contribute to measured fluxes—and the representativeness of these footprints for target areas (e.g., within 250–3000 m radii around flux towers) that are often used in flux-data synthesis and modeling studies. We examine the land-cover composition and vegetation characteristics, represented here by the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), in the flux footprints and target areas across 214 AmeriFlux sites, and evaluate potential biases as a consequence of the footprint-to-target-area mismatch. Monthly 80% footprint climatologies vary across sites and through time ranging four orders of magnitude from 103 to 107 m2 due to the measurement heights, underlying vegetation- and ground-surface characteristics, wind directions, and turbulent state of the atmosphere. Few eddy-covariance sites are located in a truly homogeneous landscape. Thus, the common model-data integration approaches that use a fixed-extent target area across sites introduce biases on the order of 4%–20% for EVI and 6%–20% for the dominant land cover percentage. These biases are site-specific functions of measurement heights, target area extents, and land-surface characteristics. We advocate that flux datasets need to be used with footprint awareness, especially in research and applications that benchmark against models and data products with explicit spatial information. We propose a simple representativeness index based on our evaluations that can be used as a guide to identify site-periods suitable for specific applications and to provide general guidance for data use.
    Description: We thank the AmeriFlux site teams for sharing their data and metadata with the network. Funding for these flux sites is acknowledged in the site data DOI, shown in Table S1. This analysis was supported in part by funding provided to the AmeriFlux Management Project by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. All footprint climatologies, site-level representativeness indices, and monthly EVI and sensor location biases can be accessed via the Zenodo Data Repository (Datasets S1–S6, http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4015350).
    Keywords: Flux footprint ; Spatial representativeness ; Landsat EVI ; Land cover ; Sensor location bias ; Model-data benchmarking
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...