Browsing by Author "Liu, Shuguang"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Characterizing the performance of ecosystem models across time scales: A spectral analysis of the North American Carbon Program site‐level synthesis
(2011-12-20) Dietze, Michael C.; Vargas, Rodrigo; Richardson, Andrew D.; Stoy, Paul C.; Barr, Alan G.; Anderson, Ryan S.; M. Altaf Arain, M. Altaf; Baker, Ian T.; Blac, T. Andrew; Chen, Jing M.; Ciais, Philippe; Flanagan, Lawrence B.; Gough, Christopher M.; Grant, Robert F.; Hollinger, David Y.; Izaurralde, R. Cesar; Kucharik, Christopher J.; Lafleur, Peter; Liu, Shuguang; Lokupitiya, Erandathie; Luo, Yiqi; Munger, J. William; Peng, Changhui; Poulter, Benjamin; Price, David T.; Ricciuto, Daniel M.; Riley, William J.; Sahoo, Alok Kumar; Schaefer, Kevin; Suyker, Andrew E.; Tain, Hanqin; Tonitto, Christina; Verbeeck, Hans; Verma, Shashi B.; Weifeng, Wang; Weng, Ensheng
Ecosystem models are important tools for diagnosing the carbon cycle and projecting its behavior across space and time. Despite the fact that ecosystems respond to drivers at multiple time scales, most assessments of model performance do not discriminate different time scales. Spectral methods, such as wavelet analyses, present an alternative approach that enables the identification of the dominant time scales contributing to model performance in the frequency domain. In this study we used wavelet analyses to synthesize the performance of 21 ecosystem models at 9 eddy covariance towers as part of the North American Carbon Program's site-level intercomparison. This study expands upon previous single-site and single-model analyses to determine what patterns of model error are consistent across a diverse range of models and sites. To assess the significance of model error at different time scales, a novel Monte Carlo approach was developed to incorporate flux observation error. Failing to account for observation error leads to a misidentification of the time scales that dominate model error. These analyses show that model error (1) is largest at the annual and 20–120 day scales, (2) has a clear peak at the diurnal scale, and (3) shows large variability among models in the 2–20 day scales. Errors at the annual scale were consistent across time, diurnal errors were predominantly during the growing season, and intermediate-scale errors were largely event driven. Breaking spectra into discrete temporal bands revealed a significant model-by-band effect but also a nonsignificant model-by-site effect, which together suggest that individual models show consistency in their error patterns. Differences among models were related to model time step, soil hydrology, and the representation of photosynthesis and phenology but not the soil carbon or nitrogen cycles. These factors had the greatest impact on diurnal errors, were less important at annual scales, and had the least impact at intermediate time scales.
Deriving a light use efficiency model from eddy covariance flux data for predicting daily gross primary production across biomes
(2007-04) Yuan, Wenping; Liu, Shuguang; Zhou, Guangsheng; Zhou, Guoyi; Tieszen, Larry L.; Baldocchi, Dennis D.; Bernhofer, Christian; Gholz, Henry; Goldstein, Allen H.; Goulden, Michael L.; Hollinger, David Y.; Hu, Yueming; Law, Beverly E.; Stoy, Paul C.; Vesala, Timo; Wofsy, Steven C.
The quantitative simulation of gross primary production (GPP) at various spatial and temporal scales has been a major challenge in quantifying the global carbon cycle. We developed a light use efficiency (LUE) daily GPP model from eddy covariance (EC) measurements. The model, called EC-LUE, is driven by only four variables: normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), air temperature, and the Bowen ratio of sensible to latent heat flux (used to calculate moisture stress). The EC-LUE model relies on two assumptions: First, that the fraction of absorbed PAR (fPAR) is a linear function of NDVI; Second, that the realized light use efficiency, calculated from a biome-independent invariant potential LUE, is controlled by air temperature or soil moisture, whichever is most limiting. The EC-LUE model was calibrated and validated using 24,349 daily GPP estimates derived from 28 eddy covariance flux towers from the AmeriFlux and EuroFlux networks, covering a variety of forests, grasslands and savannas. The model explained 85% and 77% of the observed variations of daily GPP for all the calibration and validation sites, respectively. A comparison with GPP calculated from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) indicated that the EC-LUE model predicted GPP that better matched tower data across these sites. The realized LUE was predominantly controlled by moisture conditions throughout the growing season, and controlled by temperature only at the beginning and end of the growing season. The EC-LUE model is an alternative approach that makes it possible to map daily GPP over large areas because (1) the potential LUE is invariant across various land cover types and (2) all driving forces of the model can be derived from remote sensing data or existing climate observation networks.
Evaluating the agreement between measurements and models of net ecosystem exchange at different times and time scales using wavelet coherence: an example using data from the North American Carbon Program Site-Level Interim Synthesis
(2013-11) Stoy, Paul C.; Dietze, Michael C.; Richardson, Andrew D.; Vargas, Rodrigo; Barr, Alan G.; Anderson, R. S.; Arain, M. Altaf; Baker, Ian T.; Black, T. A; Chen, Jing M.; Cook, R. B.; Gough, Christopher M.; Grant, Robert F.; Hollinger, David Y.; Izaurralde, R. Cesar; Kucharik, Christopher J.; Lafleur, Peter; Law, Beverly E.; Liu, Shuguang; Lokupitiya, Erandathie; Luo, Yiqi; Munger, J. William; Peng, Changhui; Poulter, Benjamin; Price, David T.; Ricciuto, Daniel M.; Riley, William J.; Sahoo, Alok Kumar; Schaefer, Kevin; Schwalm, C. R.; Tian, Hui; Verbeeck, Hans; Weng, Ensheng
Earth system processes exhibit complex patterns across time, as do the models that seek to replicate these processes. Model output may or may not be significantly related to observations at different times and on different frequencies. Conventional model diagnostics provide an aggregate view of model–data agreement, but usually do not identify the time and frequency patterns of model–data disagreement, leaving unclear the steps required to improve model response to environmental drivers that vary on characteristic frequencies. Wavelet coherence can quantify the times and timescales at which two time series, for example time series of models and measurements, are significantly different. We applied wavelet coherence to interpret the predictions of 20 ecosystem models from the North American Carbon Program (NACP) Site-Level Interim Synthesis when confronted with eddy-covariance-measured net ecosystem exchange (NEE) from 10 ecosystems with multiple years of available data. Models were grouped into classes with similar approaches for incorporating phenology, the calculation of NEE, the inclusion of foliar nitrogen (N), and the use of model–data fusion. Models with prescribed, rather than prognostic, phenology often fit NEE observations better on annual to interannual timescales in grassland, wetland and agricultural ecosystems. Models that calculated NEE as net primary productivity (NPP) minus heterotrophic respiration (HR) rather than gross ecosystem productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) fit better on annual timescales in grassland and wetland ecosystems, but models that calculated NEE as GPP minus ER were superior on monthly to seasonal timescales in two coniferous forests. Models that incorporated foliar nitrogen (N) data were successful at capturing NEE variability on interannual (multiple year) timescales at Howland Forest, Maine. The model that employed a model–data fusion approach often, but not always, resulted in improved fit to data, suggesting that improving model parameterization is important but not the only step for improving model performance. Combined with previous findings, our results suggest that the mechanisms driving daily and annual NEE variability tend to be correctly simulated, but the magnitude of these fluxes is often erroneous, suggesting that model parameterization must be improved. Few NACP models correctly predicted fluxes on seasonal and interannual timescales where spectral energy in NEE observations tends to be low, but where phenological events, multi-year oscillations in climatological drivers, and ecosystem succession are known to be important for determining ecosystem function. Mechanistic improvements to models must be made to replicate observed NEE variability on seasonal and interannual timescales.