A challenge to the flux-tower upscaling hypothesis? A multi-tower comparison from the Chequamegon Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study K.J. Davis 1, D.R. Ricciuto.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Lauren Sanchez, Middlebury College

Advertisements

"Ring 2": High-precision, high-accuracy CO 2 mixing ratio measurements in support of the NACP Mid Continent Intensive ring2.psu.edu Scott Richardson, Natasha.

Responses of terrestrial ecosystems to drought

The impact of a declining water table on observed carbon fluxes at a northern temperate wetland Benjamin N. Sulman A nkur R. Desai * Department of Atmospheric.

Carbon Cycling in a Warmer, Greener World The Incredible Unpredictable Plant Ankur R Desai University of Wisconsin-Madison CPEP Spring 2009.

The C budget of Japan: Ecosystem Model (TsuBiMo) Y. YAMAGATA and G. ALEXANDROV Climate Change Research Project, National Institute for Environmental Studies,

A MONASH UNIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE Musa Kilinc and Danielle Martin School of Geography and Environmental Science.

Magnitude and Spatial Distribution of Uncertainty in Ecosystem Production and Biomass of Amazonia Caused by Vegetation Characteristics Christopher Potter.

Estimating the contribution of agricultural land use to terrestrial carbon fluxes in the continental US Keith Paustian 1,2, Steven Ogle 2, Scott Denning.

Uncovering mechanisms of episodic methane sources observed by a very tall eddy covariance tower Ankur Desai, UW-Madison Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences.

Old-Growth Carbon Sequestration in the Sylvania Wilderness Ottawa National Forest, U.P. Michigan Ankur Desai Penn State, Meteorology January 2002.

Cross-spectral analysis on Net Ecosystem Exchange: Dominant timescale and correlations among key ecosystem variables over the Ameriflux Harvard forest.

NESTED GLOBAL INVERSION WITH A FOCUS ON NORTH AMERICA: COMPARISON WITH BOTTOM-UP RESULTS IN CANADA Jing M. Chen, University of Toronto Main Contributors:

Modeling framework for estimation of regional CO2 fluxes using concentration measurements from a ring of towers Modeling framework for estimation of regional.

Trends in Terrestrial Carbon Sinks Driven by Hydroclimatic Change since 1948: Data-Driven Analysis using FLUXNET Trends in Terrestrial Carbon Sinks Driven.

Effects of Forest Management on Carbon Flux and Storage Jiquan Chen, Randy Jensen, Qinglin Li, Rachel Henderson & Jianye Xu University of Toledo & Missouri.

Spatial Processes and Land-atmosphere Flux Constraining regional ecosystem models with flux tower data assimilation Flux Measurements and Advanced Modeling,

The observed responses of ecosystem CO2 exchange to climate variation from diurnal to annual time scale in the northern America. C. Yi, K.J. Davis, The.

Interannual variability across sites: Bridging the gap between flux towers and flasks Goals Obtain a mechanistic understanding of tower-scale interannual.

Phenological responses of NEE in the subboreal Controls on IAV by autumn zero- crossing and soil thermal profile Dr. Desai.

Is It True? At What Scale? What Is The Mechanism? Can It Be Managed? 150 Is The New 80: Continuing Carbon Storage In Aging Great Lakes Forests UMBS Forest.

Old & NotSoOld Examining Changes in Forest Ecosystem Carbon Exchange with Stand Age in the Upper Midwest US Ankur Desai, Ken Davis, Weiguo Wang Department.

The role of the Chequamegon Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study in the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan Ken Davis The Pennsylvania State University The 13 th ChEAS.

Multi-tower Synthesis Scaling of Regional Carbon Dioxide Flux Another fine mess of observed data, remote sensing and ecosystem model parameterization Ankur.

Eddy covariance - estimating ecosystem fluxes of carbon and water Asko Noormets, Jiquan Chen Dept. Earth, Ecological and Environmental Sciences The University.

The Big Picture To assess the Global Carbon Budget we need information that is ‘Everywhere, All of the Time’ Many Complementary Methods exist, Each with.

Integrating Remote Sensing, Flux Measurements and Ecosystem Models Faith Ann Heinsch Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group (NTSG) University of Montana.

Translation to the New TCO Panel Beverly Law Prof. Global Change Forest Science Science Chair, AmeriFlux Network Oregon State University.

Three-dimensional flows and NEE: Results from the Chequamegon Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (ChEAS) Ken Davis, Weiguo Wang, Chuixiang Yi and others, The Pennsylvania.

Spatial and temporal patterns of CH 4 and N 2 O fluxes from North America as estimated by process-based ecosystem model Hanqin Tian, Xiaofeng Xu and other.

Characterizing observational and model uncertainty Kusum Naithani Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University ChEAS 2012 Workshop.

Chamber and biometric flux measurments for upscaling C- budgets: NACP Tier 3 Efforts Peter Weishampel Dept. Soil, Water, and Climate University of Minnesota.

Integration of biosphere and atmosphere observations Yingping Wang 1, Gabriel Abramowitz 1, Rachel Law 1, Bernard Pak 1, Cathy Trudinger 1, Ian Enting.

Satellite data, ecosystem models and site data: contributions of the IGBP flux network to carbon cycle science David Schimel, Galina Churkina, Eva Falge,

The Role of Virtual Tall Towers in the Carbon Dioxide Observation Network Martha Butler The Pennsylvania State University ChEAS Meeting June 5-6, 2006.

ChEAS 2005 D.S. Mackay June 1-2, 2005 Reference canopy conductance through space and time: Unifying properties and their conceptual basis D. Scott Mackay.

Impacts of leaf phenology and water table on interannual variability of carbon fluxes in subboreal uplands and wetlands Implications for regional fluxes.

ChEAS workshop. August, 2002 Department of Meteorology, Penn State University Eddy-covariance flux measurements: Outline for the day Morning ChEAS sites.

Carbon & Water Exchange of an Oak-Grass Savanna Ecosystem Dennis Baldocchi Biometeorology Lab, ESPM University of California, Berkeley.

Interannual Variability in the ChEAS Mesonet ChEAS XI, 12 August 2008 UNDERC-East, Land O Lakes, WI Ankur Desai Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences, University.

Project goals Evaluate the accuracy and precision of the CO2 DIAL system, in particular its ability to measure: –Typical atmospheric boundary layer - free.

Variations in Continental Terrestrial Primary Production, Evapotranspiration and Disturbance Faith Ann Heinsch, Maosheng Zhao, Qiaozhen Mu, David Mildrexler,

ChEAS meeting. June, 2003Department of Meteorology, Penn State University Introduction Welcome, logistics. A brief history of the ChEAS. Scope of the ChEAS.

What have we learned from forest tower flux data following disturbance? Brian Amiro, A. Barr, J. Barr, T.A. Black, R. Bracho, M. Brown, J. Chen, K. Clark,

Goal: to understand carbon dynamics in montane forest regions by developing new methods for estimating carbon exchange at local to regional scales. Activities:

Spatial Processes and Land-atmosphere Flux Constraining ecosystem models with regional flux tower data assimilation Flux Measurements and Advanced Modeling,

CONSTRUCTING REGIONAL CO 2 FLUXES USING FLUX-TOWER UPSCALING AND ATMOSPHERIC BUDGETS Results from the Chequamegon Ecosystem- Atmosphere Study (ChEAS) and.

Chronosequence of soil respiration in ChEAS sites (sub-topic of spatial upscaling of carbon measurement) Jim Tang Department of Forest Resources University.

Merging CO 2 flux and mixing ratio observations at synoptic, seasonal and interannual scales Kenneth J. Davis, Chuixiang Yi, Martha P. Butler, Michael.

The Virtual Tall Towers approach: A link to the global CO 2 flux network Ken Davis, Natasha Miles, Scott Richardson, Weiguo Wang, Chuixiang Yi and colleagues.

Why study biogeochemistry(sciences?) at regional scales? Ken Davis Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania State University.

Towards a robust, generalizable non-linear regression gap filling algorithm (NLR_EM) Ankur R Desai – National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Boulder,

Cheas 2006 Meeting Marek Uliasz: Estimation of regional fluxes of CO 2 … Cheas 2006 Meeting Marek Uliasz: Estimation of regional fluxes of CO 2 …

Success and Failure of Implementing Data-driven Upscaling Using Flux Networks and Remote Sensing Jingfeng Xiao Complex Systems Research Center, University.

Influence of Land Cover Heterogeneity, Land-Use Change and Management on the Regional Carbon Cycle in the Upper Midwest USA Ankur R Desai, Kenneth J Davis:

Spatial Coherence of NEE Response of Different Ecosystems to the Same Climate Anomaly Martha Butler 1, Ken Davis 1, Peter Bakwin 2, David Hollinger 3,

Ring2.psu.edu Natasha Miles, Scott Richardson, Ken Davis, and Eric Crosson American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting 2008: 17 Dec 2008 Temporal and spatial.

Daily net carbon exchange as a mediator of heterotrophic soil respiration across two forest chronosequences Jared L. DeForest, Asko Noormets, and Jiquan.

Arctic RIMS & WALE (Regional, Integrated Hydrological Monitoring System & Western Arctic Linkage Experiment) John Kimball FaithAnn Heinsch Steve Running.

Validation of ASTER and MODIS surface temperature and vegetation products with surface flux applications Principle Investigators Tom Gower, Univ. of Wisconsin.

Figure 10. Improvement in landscape resolution that the new 250-meter MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) measurement of gross primary.

Comparison of GPP from Terra-MODIS and AmeriFlux Network Towers

Jiquan Chen Kim Brosofske Asko Noormets Tom Crow Soung Ryu Many others

Old and Not-So-Old Research Progress/Plans for Ankur Desai Penn State University, Department of Meteorology Cheas 2003 Meeting, Woodruff, WI, 29 June –

Welcome to ChEAS VIII Logistics. Introductions. Reimbursement. Meals. Transport. Facilities –we must take care. Agenda – order of topics, field visit.

Lake Superior Region Carbon Cycle

Atmospheric Tracers and the Great Lakes

Determining the Influence of Winter on Ecosystem

Climate Control of Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration

Regional Carbon Fluxes in WI:

Presentation transcript:

A challenge to the flux-tower upscaling hypothesis? A multi-tower comparison from the Chequamegon Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study K.J. Davis 1, D.R. Ricciuto 1, B.D. Cook 2, M.P. Butler 1, A.R. Desai 1, W. Wang 1, C. Yi 3, P.S. Bakwin 4, P.V. Bolstad 2, J. Martin 2, E. Carey 2, D.S. Mackay 5, B.E. Ewers 6, J. Chen 7, A. Noormets 7, F.A. Heinsch 8, A.S. Denning 9, R. Teclaw 10 1 Penn State, 2 U.Minnesota, 3 U.Colorado, 4 NOAA-CMDL, 5 U.Buffalo, 6 U.Wyoming, 7 U.Toledo, 8 U.Montana, 9 Colorado State, 10 USDA Forest Service With support from: DoE Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program, DoE National Institutes for Global Environmental Change, NOAA, NSF Division of Environmental Biology

Motivation What is and what governs ecosystem- atmosphere exchange of CO 2 on spatial scales of geopolitical and bioclimatological relevance?

Outline What is the “flux tower upscaling hypothesis?” Method: How do we test this hypothesis? Results: Flux magnitudes and flux variability. Simultaneous up-scaling and downscaling.

Flux tower upscaling hypothesis Fluxes of CO 2 (NEE, R, GEP) = f (climate variables, ecosystem characteristics) Climate and ecosystem variables can be mapped, functions determined, fluxes interpolated and integrated across space. NEE = net ecosystem-atmosphere exchange, R = ecosystem respiration, GEP = gross ecosystem productivity, NEP = net ecosystem productivity NEE = R – GEP = - NEP

Flux tower upscaling hypothesis Flux: R, NEE, GEP Climate variables (x, y) Flux = ax + by + c, interpolate fluxes over ~ (1000 km) 2 Each point ~ (1 km) 2 Segregate further by ecosystem characteristics? Stand type (conifer, deciduous, grass, crop) Stand age (young, mature, old)

Flux tower upscaling hypothesis Plots at towers Within stand : biometric data, chamber fluxes Tower sites Stand : Eddy covariance flux towers representing key biomes and climate regions Continent : Map biomes and climate, model fluxes Upper Midwest, N. America

Flux tower upscaling hypothesis with simultaneous constraints Within stand : biometric data, chamber fluxes Stand : Eddy covariance flux towers Forest : Clusters of flux towers WLEF tower Continent : Map biomes and climate, model fluxes Region : Map ecosystem variables, model fluxes N. Wisconsin [CO 2 ] N. American [CO 2 ]

Chequamegon Ecosystem- Atmosphere Study (ChEAS) region

Testing the upscaling hypothesis Flux: R, NEE, GEP Climate variables (x, y) ChEAS

Testing the upscaling hypothesis: Regional clusters of flux towers Can fluxes be up-scaled from stand to forest or region? Clusters can isolate the role of ecosystem characteristics via identical climate across sites. What must be measured and mapped for flux upscaling?

Photo credit: UND Citation crew, COBRA WLEF tall tower (447m) CO 2 flux measurements at: 30, 122 and 396 m CO 2 mixing ratio measurements at: 11, 30, 76, 122, 244 and 396 m Forest-scale evaluation of the upscaling hypothesis: WLEF flux tower

ChEAS vegetation

ChEAS flux tower array Forest-scale flux: WLEF tower,1997-present Dominant stand types and flux towers: Northern AspenForestedConifer hardwoodwetland young old mature Willow Creek(UMBS)Lost CreekChen B 2000-present1999-present2001-present2002-present Bolstad et al, in press Cook et al, in prep Chen A 2002–present Sylvania 2002-present Desai et al, in prep Desai et al, B52D-04Chen mobile Yi et al, 00 Berger et al, 01 Davis et al, 03 Ricciuto et al, B51 Mackay et al, 02 Mackay et al, H29 Ewers et al, 02 Ewers et al, H30

ChEAS upscaling test results 1.Climate alone does not explain ChEAS CO 2 fluxes. 2.The WLEF region is a source of CO 2 to the atmosphere. drying wetlands? disturbance/management?

ChEAS upscaling test results 1.Climate alone does not explain ChEAS CO 2 fluxes. 2.The WLEF footprint is a source of CO 2 to the atmosphere. drying wetlands? disturbance/management? 3.WLEF fluxes cannot be explained as a linear combination of Lost Creek and Willow Creek fluxes. aspen? conifers? WLEF footprint dissimilar?

NEE (gC m -2 ) Respiration (gC m -2 ) Photosynthesis (gC m -2 ) WLEF WLEF WLEF WLEF WLEF WLEF average Willow Creek Willow Creek Willow Creek Willow Creek average Lost creek Lost Creek Lost Creek average NEE and gross fluxes at ChEAS sites:

ChEAS upscaling test results 1.Climate alone does not explain ChEAS CO 2 fluxes. 2.The WLEF footprint is a source of CO 2 to the atmosphere. drying wetlands? disturbance/management? 3.WLEF fluxes cannot be explained as a linear combination of Lost Creek and Willow Creek fluxes. aspen? conifers? WLEF footprint dissimilar? systematic errors that differ among flux towers? 4.Soil + leaf + stem respiration is similar in aspen and northern hardwoods in the Willow Creek area. WLEF high respiration rate due to coarse woody debris?

Chamber respiration fluxes Table 4. Estimated annual respiration for the whole ecosystems and components, All rates are reported in Mg C ha -1 yr -1. Bolstad et al, in press. Forest type and respiration (soil + leaf + stem) Northern Hardwoods Mature Aspen Intermediate Aspen

ChEAS upscaling test results 1.Climate alone does not explain ChEAS CO 2 fluxes. 2.The WLEF footprint is a source of CO 2 to the atmosphere. drying wetlands? disturbance/management? 3.WLEF fluxes cannot be explained as a linear combination of Lost Creek and Willow Creek fluxes. aspen? conifers? WLEF footprint dissimilar? systematic errors that differ among flux towers? 4.Soil + leaf + stem respiration is similar in aspen and northern hardwoods in the Willow Creek area. WLEF high respiration rate due to coarse woody debris? Chamber R >> W Creek R implies error? 5.Sylvania (old growth) fluxes differ from Willow Creek (mature) fluxes as expected due to stand age (similar GEP, old R > mature R). But soil respiration from chambers contradicts this result.

Sylvania – Willow Creek flux tower comparison GEP, old growth (red) vs. mature (blue) forest R, old growth (red) vs. mature (blue)

Summary Simple tower upscaling hypothesis, WLEF = a*W Creek + b*L Creek, fails. Means of reconciliation is not clear. Upscaling the magnitude of R, GEP, NEE is challenging.

Motivation II What is and what governs the interannual variability in ecosystem-atmosphere exchange of CO 2 on spatial scales of geopolitical and bioclimatological relevance?

Interannual variability in the rate of accumulation of atmospheric CO 2

Flux tower upscaling hypothesis II – interannual variability  flux) = flux – mean flux Climate variables (x, y)  (flux) = ax + by + c, interpolate interannual variability in fluxes over ~ (1000 km) 2 Each point ~ (1 km) 2 Ecosystem fluxes respond similarly to climate variability across a wide range of forest types and ages(?)

Testing the interannual variability upscaling hypothesis Flux tower clusters deployed for multiple years test the hypothesis that various forest stands respond similarly to climate variability.

Interannual variability upscaling results 1.ChEAS annual fluxes (R, GEP, NEE) are moderately coherent across ChEAS sites, (Caterpillars, not climate?). 2.ChEAS chamber and tower R fluxes show similar variability, , across sites. (2001 high flux, 2002 low flux).  (WLEF) = a*  (W Creek) + b*  (L Creek)? 3. Continental scale fluxes are very coherent, spring 1998, and linked to [CO 2 ]! (Butler et al, this session) An extreme climatic event.

Joint constraints! Complementary methods

Flux tower upscaling hypothesis with simultaneous constraints Within stand : biometric data, chamber fluxes Stand : Eddy covariance flux towers Forest : Clusters of flux towers WLEF tower Continent : Map biomes and climate, model fluxes Region : Map ecosystem variables, model fluxes N. Wisconsin [CO 2 ] N. American [CO 2 ]

ChEAS regional flux experiment domain = LI-820 sampling from 75m above ground on a communications tower. = 40m Sylvania flux tower with high-quality standard gases. = 447m WLEF tower. LI-820, CMDL in situ and flask measurements.

Potential VTT network: Selection of new sites to be based on optimization study, Skidmore et al, and plans for a Midwest regional intensive

Complementary nature of inversion downscaling and flux tower upscaling Inversion downscalingFlux tower upscaling Excellent spatial Intrinsically local integration measurements. Strong constraint on Difficult to upscale flux flux magnitudemagnitudes. Variability easier. Poor temporal Excellent temporal resolution resolution Limited mechanisticStrong mechanistic understanding.understanding

Conclusions It is relatively difficult to upscale stand level fluxes to a region. Upscaling interannual variability may be more tractable than absolute flux magnitudes. Clustered flux towers provide upscaling methods testbeds. Flux tower up-scaling and inversion downscaling are very complementary.