Integrating Remote Sensing, Integrating Remote Sensing, Flux Measurements and Flux Measurements and
Ecosystem ModelsEcosystem ModelsFaith Ann HeinschFaith Ann Heinsch
Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group (NTSG)Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group (NTSG)University of MontanaUniversity of Montana
NCAR ASP 2007 ColloquiumNCAR ASP 2007 ColloquiumRegional BiogeochemistryRegional Biogeochemistry
June 12, 2007June 12, 2007
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
100000000
1000000000
10000000000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
1E+06 1E+07
Spatial scale (m)
Tim
e sc
ale
(s)
hour
day
year
decadeTreeRings
Chambers
Inventories
Historical observations
Remote SensingStream Flow
Method Hopping
SapFlow
EddyFlux
Climate gradients
Manipulations
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
100000000
1000000000
10000000000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
1E+06 1E+07
Spatial scale (m)
Tim
e sc
ale
(s)
hour
day
year
decade
Remote Sensing
Method Hopping
EddyFlux
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
100000000
1000000000
10000000000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
1E+06 1E+07
Spatial scale (m)
Tim
e sc
ale
(s)
hour
day
year
decade
EddyFlux
Eddy Covariance
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
100000000
1000000000
10000000000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
1E+06 1E+07
Spatial scale (m)
Tim
e sc
ale
(s)
hour
day
year
decade
Remote Sensing
Remote sensing
GPP = Light X Conversion Efficiency
GPP = f (PAR) X
VPD
Temperature
PAR
GPP
GPP = Light X Conversion Efficiency
GPP = f (PAR) X
VPD
Temperature
PAR
GPPGPP
MODIS GPP (MOD17)MODIS GPP (MOD17)
ε = εmax * m(Tmin) * m(VPD)
Stress Scalars for Light Use Efficiency
VPDTemperature
Light Use EfficiencyLight Use Efficiency
Land Cover (Land Cover (MOD12Q1MOD12Q1))– Biome TypeBiome Type– Annual, 1-kmAnnual, 1-km
8-Day FPAR/LAI (8-Day FPAR/LAI (MOD15A2MOD15A2))– FPAR and living biomassFPAR and living biomass– 8-day, 1-km8-day, 1-km
Daily Meteorological Data (Daily Meteorological Data (DAODAO))– Environmental conditionsEnvironmental conditions– Driving forcesDriving forces– Daily, 1.00Daily, 1.00 x 1.25 x 1.25
GPP/NPPGPP/NPP((MOD17A2/A3MOD17A2/A3))
Inputs to the MOD17 GPP/NPP AlgorithmInputs to the MOD17 GPP/NPP Algorithm
MOD17 BPLUT – v. 4.8MOD17 BPLUT – v. 4.8
MOD17 BPLUT – v. 4.8MOD17 BPLUT – v. 4.8
MODIS GPP MODIS GPP
Comparison of GPP from Terra-MODIS and Comparison of GPP from Terra-MODIS and AmeriFlux Network TowersAmeriFlux Network Towers
Biome types used in comparison: forests (evergreen needleleaf, deciduous broadleaf, and mixed species), oak savanna, grassland, tundra, and chaparral.
Calibration / Validation TestsCalibration / Validation Tests
VEGETATION: Forests, Grass, Shrubs, and Crops
CLIMATE: Cold-Dry, Cold-Wet, Warm-Dry, and Warm-Wet
GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNSGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS
GROWING SEASON (Start and End)
STRESS (Mid-Summer Water Stress, ColdTemperatures, High Vapor Pressure Deficits)
SEASONAL PATTERNSSEASONAL PATTERNS
FLUX MAGNITUDEFLUX MAGNITUDE
Location of the AmeriFlux network sitesLocation of the AmeriFlux network sites
AmeriFlux: http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/
Fluxnet: http://www.fluxnet.ornl.gov/fluxnet/index.cfm
Uncertainties in the MOD17 Uncertainties in the MOD17 (GPP/NPP) Algorithm(GPP/NPP) Algorithm
1. Meteorological DAO IPAR, Temperature, VPD
2. Radiometric MODIS FPAR and LAI
3. Ecological MOD17 representation of plant physiology
(BPLUT)Accurate mapping of landcover type
Each of these requires a different mode of validation.
Uncertainties in the MOD17 Uncertainties in the MOD17 (GPP/NPP) Algorithm(GPP/NPP) Algorithm
1. Meteorological DAO IPAR, Temperature, VPD
2. Radiometric MODIS FPAR and LAI
3. Ecological MOD17 representation of plant physiology
(BPLUT)Accurate mapping of landcover type
Each of these requires a different mode of validation.
Non-linear interpolation of DAONon-linear interpolation of DAOA B
Methods of DAO SmoothingMethods of DAO Smoothing
The non-linear distancesThe non-linear distances
The weighted valuesThe weighted values
The interpolated DAO The interpolated DAO variablesvariables
Climate – Niwot Ridge, COClimate – Niwot Ridge, CO
Heinsch et al. IEEE 44: 1908-1925, 2006
Climate – Tonzi Ranch, CAClimate – Tonzi Ranch, CA
Heinsch et al. IEEE 44: 1908-1925, 2006
Global Daily Surface Meteorology vs Fluxtowers across 9 biomes
From D.P.Turner et al. Remote Sensing of Env. 102:282-292. 2006
Uncertainties in the MOD17 Uncertainties in the MOD17 (GPP/NPP) Algorithm(GPP/NPP) Algorithm
1. Meteorological DAO IPAR, Temperature, VPD
2. Radiometric MODIS FPAR and LAI
3. Ecological Accurate mapping of landcover typeMOD17 representation of plant physiology
(BPLUT)
Each of these requires a different mode of validation.
MODIS LAI vs. Tower GPP for 15 Ameriflux Sites
Heinsch et al. IEEE 44: 1908-1925, 2006
Uncertainties in the MOD17 Uncertainties in the MOD17 (GPP/NPP) Algorithm(GPP/NPP) Algorithm
1. Meteorological DAO IPAR, Temperature, VPD
2. Radiometric MODIS FPAR and LAI
3. Ecological Accurate mapping of landcover typeMOD17 representation of plant physiology
(BPLUT)
Each of these requires a different mode of validation.
Blodgett Forest, CABlodgett Forest, CA
1 = ENF 5 = Mixed Forest
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 5 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Gainesville, FL (Austin-Carey)Gainesville, FL (Austin-Carey)
1 = ENF 2 = EBF 5 = MF 8 = Woody Savanna 12 = Cropland
1 5 1 1 8 1 12
1 1 1 1 1 12 12
12 8 1 8 8 1 1
12 8 8 1 1 2 2
1 8 1 2 12 12 2
8 8 1 2 2 2 12
1 1 8 1 12 12 2
Uncertainties from Land Cover (MOD12Q1)Uncertainties from Land Cover (MOD12Q1)
4 = Deciduous Broadleaf Forest (DBF)5 = Mixed Forest8 = Woody Savannas
WLEF Tall Tower, Wisconsin5 5 5 5 5 5 5
8 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 8 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
LandLandCoverCover
Heinsch et al. IEEE 44: 1908-1925, 2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 3 6 9 12 15
GPP (gC m-2 d-1)
Fre
qu
ency
(%
)ENF
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 3 6 9 12 15
GPP (gC m-2 d-1)
Fre
qu
ency
(%
)ENF
DBF
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 3 6 9 12 15
GPP (gC m-2 d-1)
Fre
qu
ency
(%
)ENF
DBF
Shrub
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 3 6 9 12 15
GPP (gC m-2 d-1)
Fre
qu
ency
(%
)ENF
DBF
Shrub
Savanna
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 3 6 9 12 15
GPP (gC m-2 d-1)
Fre
qu
ency
(%
)ENF
DBF
Shrub
Savanna
Grass
Daily GPP by Biome Type, July 20~27, 2001Daily GPP by Biome Type, July 20~27, 2001
Credit: Sinkyu Kang, NTSG
r = 0.859 0.173% Error = 19%
MODIS GPP vs. Tower GPP (DAO met.)
r = 0.792 0.206% Error = -2%
MODIS GPP vs. Tower GPP (Tower met.)
Metolius (P. pine)
Sylvania(dbf)
Tonzi Ranch (oak savanna)
Niwot Ridge (subalpine fir)
MODIS GPP/NPPMODIS GPP/NPP vs. Flux Towers vs. Flux Towersacross 9 Biomesacross 9 Biomes
From D.P. Turner et al. Remote Sensing of Env 102:282-292. 2006
Summary of ResultsSummary of Results MODIS GPP follows the general trend, capturing onset of leaf MODIS GPP follows the general trend, capturing onset of leaf
growth, and in many cases, leaf senescence, while tending to over-growth, and in many cases, leaf senescence, while tending to over-estimate total tower GPP.estimate total tower GPP.
The MODIS GPP algorithm effectively captures the effects of stress The MODIS GPP algorithm effectively captures the effects of stress events, such as late-summer dry-down, on canopies.events, such as late-summer dry-down, on canopies.
Substituting tower meteorological data in the MODIS algorithm Substituting tower meteorological data in the MODIS algorithm leads to GPP values which are very similar to tower GPP, leads to GPP values which are very similar to tower GPP, suggesting the algorithm adequately estimates site GPP.suggesting the algorithm adequately estimates site GPP.
If DAO meteorology and tower meteorology are similar, MODIS GPP If DAO meteorology and tower meteorology are similar, MODIS GPP is comparable to tower GPP. But, if the coarse-resolution DAO data is comparable to tower GPP. But, if the coarse-resolution DAO data is not representative of the site, MODIS GPP can differ greatly from is not representative of the site, MODIS GPP can differ greatly from tower GPP.tower GPP.
Comparisons of site data that have been received are weighted Comparisons of site data that have been received are weighted heavily towards forest biomes. Other sites need to be studied to heavily towards forest biomes. Other sites need to be studied to determine if results are similar in other ecosystems.determine if results are similar in other ecosystems.
Integrating Ecosystem Process Integrating Ecosystem Process Models (e.g., Biome-BGC)Models (e.g., Biome-BGC)
Integrating Ecosystem Process Integrating Ecosystem Process ModelsModels
Does the MODIS GPP contain enough Does the MODIS GPP contain enough information regarding water stress?information regarding water stress?– VPD is sole water stress scalarVPD is sole water stress scalar– Soil water stress??Soil water stress??
Test by comparing with Biome-BGCTest by comparing with Biome-BGC– U.S.A.U.S.A.– ChinaChina
Mu et al., JGR, 2007
Integrating Ecosystem Process Integrating Ecosystem Process ModelsModels
WaterWaterStressStressScalarsScalars(Growing(GrowingSeason)Season)
Mu et al., JGR, 2007
Correlation between water stress scalars Correlation between water stress scalars in Biome-BGC and MOD17in Biome-BGC and MOD17
(Growing Season)(Growing Season)
Mu et al., JGR, 2007
Correlation between water stress Correlation between water stress scalars in Biome-BGC and MOD17scalars in Biome-BGC and MOD17
(Monthly)(Monthly)
Mu et al., JGR, 2007
Correlation between Biome-BGC and Correlation between Biome-BGC and MOD17 GPP EstimatesMOD17 GPP Estimates
(Monthly)(Monthly)
Does MOD17 Capture Water Stress?Does MOD17 Capture Water Stress? Water not strongly limiting for most of the wetter
areas of China and the conterminous USA– m(VPD) reflects full water stress from air & soil as determined
by Biome-BGC
Using only VPD underestimates the water stress in dry regions & in areas with strong monsoons– Western China, the northeast China plain, the Shandong
peninsula, and the central and western United States– MOD17 overestimates GPP; add soil water stress?– Need for improved precipitation data to include soil moisture
VPD alone reflects interannual variability in most areas, – Current MOD17 adequate for global studies.