Assessing the capacity of three production efficiency models in simulating gross carbon uptake across multiple biomes in conterminous USA

Booker O. Ogutu, Jadunandan Dash, Terence P. Dawson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Over the past decade, the use of production efficiency models (PEMs) to quantify terrestrial carbon exchange at regional to global scales has been on the rise. This has mainly been due to increased availability of remote sensing data to parameterise these models. However, these models are still subject to large uncertainties. Diagnosis of these uncertainties is necessary to correctly interpret their output and to suggest areas of improvement. In this study, three PEM models (i.e. Carnegie-CASA, C-Fix and MOD17 models) were run in their native format and their capacity to predict gross primary productivity (GPP) at five major biomes across conterminous USA was evaluated against eddy covariance flux tower GPP measurements. The influence of input datasets in the models output was also evaluated. Apart from the cropland biome, the Carnegie-CASA and C-Fix models predicted GPP which were slightly higher than in situ measurements in most of the evaluated biomes (i.e. the needle-leaf evergreen forests, deciduous broadleaf forests, Mediterranean savanna woodlands, and temperate grasslands). The MOD17 model on the other hand predicted lower GPP in most of the evaluated biomes. The overestimation of in situ GPP by the models was attributed to error propagation from the key vegetation biophysical used to drive the models (i.e. the FAPAR product). On the other hand, the low maximum light use efficiency (LUE) term prescribed by the models for particular biomes was responsible for most of the GPP underestimation by the models. Finally, it was noted that the differences in the models structural formulation also resulted in variation of their GPP predictions (e.g. the models which did not account for soil moisture performed poorly in predicting GPP in rain-driven biomes).
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)158-169
    Number of pages12
    JournalAgricultural and Forest Meteorology
    Volume174-175
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 15 Jun 2013

    Fingerprint

    biome
    ecosystems
    carbon
    primary productivity
    productivity
    uncertainty
    light use efficiency
    evergreen forest
    eddy covariance
    deciduous forests
    deciduous forest
    savanna
    in situ measurement
    savannas
    remote sensing
    woodlands
    woodland

    Cite this

    @article{8f6c347f7834463997e3365e1d334a37,
    title = "Assessing the capacity of three production efficiency models in simulating gross carbon uptake across multiple biomes in conterminous USA",
    abstract = "Over the past decade, the use of production efficiency models (PEMs) to quantify terrestrial carbon exchange at regional to global scales has been on the rise. This has mainly been due to increased availability of remote sensing data to parameterise these models. However, these models are still subject to large uncertainties. Diagnosis of these uncertainties is necessary to correctly interpret their output and to suggest areas of improvement. In this study, three PEM models (i.e. Carnegie-CASA, C-Fix and MOD17 models) were run in their native format and their capacity to predict gross primary productivity (GPP) at five major biomes across conterminous USA was evaluated against eddy covariance flux tower GPP measurements. The influence of input datasets in the models output was also evaluated. Apart from the cropland biome, the Carnegie-CASA and C-Fix models predicted GPP which were slightly higher than in situ measurements in most of the evaluated biomes (i.e. the needle-leaf evergreen forests, deciduous broadleaf forests, Mediterranean savanna woodlands, and temperate grasslands). The MOD17 model on the other hand predicted lower GPP in most of the evaluated biomes. The overestimation of in situ GPP by the models was attributed to error propagation from the key vegetation biophysical used to drive the models (i.e. the FAPAR product). On the other hand, the low maximum light use efficiency (LUE) term prescribed by the models for particular biomes was responsible for most of the GPP underestimation by the models. Finally, it was noted that the differences in the models structural formulation also resulted in variation of their GPP predictions (e.g. the models which did not account for soil moisture performed poorly in predicting GPP in rain-driven biomes).",
    author = "Ogutu, {Booker O.} and Jadunandan Dash and Dawson, {Terence P.}",
    note = "The printed version of this article missed out the third author's name - this was corrected at {"}Corrigendum to “Assessing the capacity of three production efficiency models in simulating gross carbon uptake across multiple biomes in conterminous USA” [Agric. Forest Meterol. 174–175 (2013) 158–169]{"}",
    year = "2013",
    month = "6",
    day = "15",
    doi = "10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.02.016",
    language = "English",
    volume = "174-175",
    pages = "158--169",
    journal = "Agricultural and Forest Meteorology",
    issn = "0168-1923",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    Assessing the capacity of three production efficiency models in simulating gross carbon uptake across multiple biomes in conterminous USA. / Ogutu, Booker O.; Dash, Jadunandan; Dawson, Terence P.

    In: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 174-175, 15.06.2013, p. 158-169.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Assessing the capacity of three production efficiency models in simulating gross carbon uptake across multiple biomes in conterminous USA

    AU - Ogutu, Booker O.

    AU - Dash, Jadunandan

    AU - Dawson, Terence P.

    N1 - The printed version of this article missed out the third author's name - this was corrected at "Corrigendum to “Assessing the capacity of three production efficiency models in simulating gross carbon uptake across multiple biomes in conterminous USA” [Agric. Forest Meterol. 174–175 (2013) 158–169]"

    PY - 2013/6/15

    Y1 - 2013/6/15

    N2 - Over the past decade, the use of production efficiency models (PEMs) to quantify terrestrial carbon exchange at regional to global scales has been on the rise. This has mainly been due to increased availability of remote sensing data to parameterise these models. However, these models are still subject to large uncertainties. Diagnosis of these uncertainties is necessary to correctly interpret their output and to suggest areas of improvement. In this study, three PEM models (i.e. Carnegie-CASA, C-Fix and MOD17 models) were run in their native format and their capacity to predict gross primary productivity (GPP) at five major biomes across conterminous USA was evaluated against eddy covariance flux tower GPP measurements. The influence of input datasets in the models output was also evaluated. Apart from the cropland biome, the Carnegie-CASA and C-Fix models predicted GPP which were slightly higher than in situ measurements in most of the evaluated biomes (i.e. the needle-leaf evergreen forests, deciduous broadleaf forests, Mediterranean savanna woodlands, and temperate grasslands). The MOD17 model on the other hand predicted lower GPP in most of the evaluated biomes. The overestimation of in situ GPP by the models was attributed to error propagation from the key vegetation biophysical used to drive the models (i.e. the FAPAR product). On the other hand, the low maximum light use efficiency (LUE) term prescribed by the models for particular biomes was responsible for most of the GPP underestimation by the models. Finally, it was noted that the differences in the models structural formulation also resulted in variation of their GPP predictions (e.g. the models which did not account for soil moisture performed poorly in predicting GPP in rain-driven biomes).

    AB - Over the past decade, the use of production efficiency models (PEMs) to quantify terrestrial carbon exchange at regional to global scales has been on the rise. This has mainly been due to increased availability of remote sensing data to parameterise these models. However, these models are still subject to large uncertainties. Diagnosis of these uncertainties is necessary to correctly interpret their output and to suggest areas of improvement. In this study, three PEM models (i.e. Carnegie-CASA, C-Fix and MOD17 models) were run in their native format and their capacity to predict gross primary productivity (GPP) at five major biomes across conterminous USA was evaluated against eddy covariance flux tower GPP measurements. The influence of input datasets in the models output was also evaluated. Apart from the cropland biome, the Carnegie-CASA and C-Fix models predicted GPP which were slightly higher than in situ measurements in most of the evaluated biomes (i.e. the needle-leaf evergreen forests, deciduous broadleaf forests, Mediterranean savanna woodlands, and temperate grasslands). The MOD17 model on the other hand predicted lower GPP in most of the evaluated biomes. The overestimation of in situ GPP by the models was attributed to error propagation from the key vegetation biophysical used to drive the models (i.e. the FAPAR product). On the other hand, the low maximum light use efficiency (LUE) term prescribed by the models for particular biomes was responsible for most of the GPP underestimation by the models. Finally, it was noted that the differences in the models structural formulation also resulted in variation of their GPP predictions (e.g. the models which did not account for soil moisture performed poorly in predicting GPP in rain-driven biomes).

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876325964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.02.016

    DO - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.02.016

    M3 - Article

    VL - 174-175

    SP - 158

    EP - 169

    JO - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

    JF - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

    SN - 0168-1923

    ER -