Figure 1.
59
Figure 1.
description
Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. a2 [umoleCO2/m2/s/degC]. a 1 [umoleCO2/m2/s]. a 3 [umoleCO2/m2/s]. -a 3 /a 4 [umoleCO2/m2/s/umole-photon]. Figure 4. Model-0 parameter a 1 vs. mean T air. Early summer. 5. late spring. Mid-summer. 4. late summer. early spring. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
23
45 a1
Model0 Parameters
0.0
00.0
50.1
00.1
50.2
00.2
5
a2
2 4 6 8Month
0.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
6-a3/a4
2 4 6 8Month
-30
-20
-10
0
a3
Figure 3a 1
[u
mol
eC
O2
/m2/
s]
a2 [
umol
eCO
2/m
2/s/
degC
]
a 3
[um
oleC
O2/
m2/
s]
-a3/a
4
[um
oleC
O2/
m2/
s/um
ole
-pho
ton]
Ta5mean [degC]
a 1 [
um
ole
CO
2/m
2/s]
Model-0 parameter a1 vs. mean Tair
Earlysummer
latespring
earlyspring
latefall
earlyfall
latesummer
Mid-summer
winter
0 5 10 15
23
45
Figure 4
SR = min{*PR, wcbot - sfc}
UR = min{PR - SR, wctop - und}
RO = PR - SR - UR
under layer Z = ZBOT
surface layer Z = ZTOP
Precipitation - Water Vapor Flux = Potential Recharge / Total Loss
ppt > Fh2o PR TL Fh2o > ppt
SL = min{TL*(sfcM) , sfc}
If und > und.thresh
UL = min{TL - SL , und}
Else
UL = buffer*(TL - SL)
wctop
wcbot
Figure 5
jul.92 jul.94 jul.96 jul.98 jul.00 jul.02
0.1
50
.20
0.2
50
.30
Figure.7a 1992-2003 Model predicted volumteric soil moisture for well-drained soil
jul.92 jul.94 jul.96 jul.98 jul.00 jul.02
0.0
60
.10
0.1
40
.18
jul.92 jul.94 jul.96 jul.98 jul.00 jul.02
0.1
50
.20
0.2
50
.30
Figure.7b 1992-2003 Model predicted volumteric soil moisture for poorly-drained soil
jul.92 jul.94 jul.96 jul.98 jul.00 jul.02
0.0
60
.10
0.1
40
.18
Ecological Year
NE
E [
Mg
C/h
a/y
ea
r]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
-4-3
-2-1
Ecological Year Sums of NEE at Harvard ForestFigure 9
Ecological Year
NE
E [
Mg
C/h
a/y
ea
r]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
-5-4
-3-2
-1Ecological Year Sums of NEE at Harvard Forest
nonlinearlook-updiurnal
Figure 10
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001ecological year
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
R2
Winter Ecosystem R - Temperature RelationshipR = a0 + a1*T
TairTsoil
DOY 1-90
Figure 11a
shawn urbanski
R2 for fit of hourly observed nighttime NEE vs Tair or Tsoil. Little difference using exponential model.
ecological year
R2
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Springtime Ecosystem R - Temperature RelationshipR = a0 + a1*T
TairTsoil
DOY 90-140
Figure 11b
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002ecological year
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
R2
Summer Ecosystem R - Temperature RelationshipR = a0 + a1*T
TairTsoil
DOY 161-205
Figure 11c
calendar year
R2
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Fall Ecosystem R - Temperature RelationshipR = a0 + a1*T
TairTsoil
DOY 300-350
Figure 11d
Ecological Year
R [
Mg
C/h
a/y
ea
r]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
91
011
12
13
14
Ecological Year Sums of R at Harvard ForestDiurnal Time Integration Method
Tdepno Tdep
R(Tdep)/R(indep) = 1.059
Figure 12
Ecological Year
NE
E [
Mg
C/h
a/y
ea
r]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
-8-6
-4-2
02
4FIG 14 - Seasonal NEE at Harvard Forest
ecoyear sumdormant seasongrowing season
Ecological Year
R/G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
/ye
ar]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
10
12
14
16
FIG 15 - Ecoyear sums of R/GEE and total Above Ground Biomass
RGEEAGBM
100
104
108
112
[Mg
C/h
a]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
hourseason
summerlatefall
winter earlyspring
latespring
early mid late earlyfall
R2
soilmoisture
phenology
Figure 19Statistical model R2 for hour and season time scales. Arrows and highlighted markers show the increase in model skill upon inclusion of phenology and soil moisture.
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-6-4
-20
24
68
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 101 - 130hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.53RMSE = 1.17a0 = -0.03 +/- 0.05a1 = 0.97 +/- 0.03
pred NEE
obs
NE
E
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-50
510
1520
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 341-100hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0RMSE = 1.24a0 = -0.72 +/- 0.41a1 = 1.59 +/- 0.33
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-2 0 2 4 6 8
-20
24
68
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 301 - 340hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.11RMSE = 1.16a0 = 0.18 +/- 0.12a1 = 0.94 +/- 0.06
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
-20
-15
-10
-50
51
0
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 131 - 160hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.87RMSE = 2.14a0 = 0.11 +/- 0.06a1 = 1.01 +/- 0.01
Fig 20a
NE
E in
uni
ts o
f [u
mol
eCO
2/m
2/s]
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-10 -5 0 5 10
-10
-50
51
0
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 276 - 300hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.54RMSE = 2.06a0 = 0.05 +/- 0.07a1 = 1.02 +/- 0.03
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
-30
-20
-10
01
02
0
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 206 - 250hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.88RMSE = 3.23a0 = 0.12 +/- 0.08a1 = 1.05 +/- 0.01
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-20 -10 0 10
-20
-10
01
0
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 251 - 275hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.88RMSE = 2.42a0 = 0.13 +/- 0.08a1 = 1.02 +/- 0.01
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
-30
-20
-10
01
02
0
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 161 - 205hour(5-day) time scale
R2 = 0.91RMSE = 3.11a0 = 0.1 +/- 0.08a1 = 1.01 +/- 0.01
Fig 20b
NE
E in
uni
ts o
f [u
mol
eCO
2/m
2/s]
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-3 -2 -1 0
-3-2
-10
R2 = 0.48RMSE = 0.7a0 = -0.28 +/- 0.21a1 = 0.62 +/- 0.13
92
93
94 9596
97
98
99
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 131 - 160month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
R2 = 0.12RMSE = 0.32a0 = 0.33 +/- 0.86a1 = 0.7 +/- 0.64
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 101 - 130month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
R2 = -0.03RMSE = 0.32a0 = 18.82 +/- 12.25a1 = -14.43 +/- 10.04
92
93
94
95
96
97
9899
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 1 - 366month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
1.5 2.0 2.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
R2 = -0.31RMSE = 0.47a0 = 6.8 +/- 2.61a1 = -2.59 +/- 1.39
92
93
94
9596
97
98
9900
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 301 - 340month time scaleFig 21a
NE
E in
uni
ts o
f [u
mol
eCO
2/m
2/s]
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
R2 = 0.2RMSE = 0.23a0 = 0.18 +/- 0.48a1 = 0.85 +/- 0.63
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 276 - 300month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
R2 = -0.21RMSE = 0.73a0 = -1.28 +/- 1.07a1 = 0.26 +/- 0.55
92
93
94
9596
97
9899
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 251 - 275month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0
-5.5
-5.0
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
R2 = 0.3RMSE = 0.66a0 = -0.26 +/- 2.25a1 = 0.96 +/- 0.56
92
93
94
95
9697
98
99
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 206 - 250month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0
-6.0
-5.5
-5.0
-4.5
-4.0 R2 = 0.65
RMSE = 0.46a0 = 0.37 +/- 1.53a1 = 1.07 +/- 0.29 92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
1992-2000 Model-0 vs. Observed DOY 161 - 205month time scaleFig 21b
NE
E in
uni
ts o
f [u
mol
eCO
2/m
2/s]
time
NE
E [
um
ole
/m2
/s]
183.92 183.94 183.96 183.98 183.00 183.02
-30
00
-20
00
-10
00
01
00
02
00
0
Observed NEE and Model-0 model predictionsSeasonal means 301.1991 - 300.2003
Figure 22.
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
9292
9393
94 94
9595
96 96
97 97
9898
9999
0000
1992-2000 Model-0 w/wo wdir (red) vs. Observed DOY 101 - 130month time scale
Figure 24
NE
E in
uni
ts o
f [u
mol
eCO
2/m
2/s] Model-0 = black
Model-0 + wind direction = red
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0
-5.5
-5.0
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
9292
9393
9494
95 95
96969797
98 98
99 99
0000
M0M0C
1992-2000 Model-0/0C vs. Observed DOY 206 - 250
month time scale
pred NEE
ob
s N
EE
-5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0-5
.5-5
.0-4
.5-4
.0-3
.5-3
.0
9292
9393
9494
95 95
96969797
98 98
99 99
0000
M0M0B
1992-2000 Model-0/0B vs. Observed DOY 206 - 250month time scale
FIGURE 25
FSDefaultUser
Figure 25. (Left) Seasonal mean NEE Model-0 (black) / Model-0C (red) vs Obs. (Right) Seasonal mean NEE Model-0 (black) / Model-C (red) vs Obs
1992-2000 Mid-summer Model-I NEE vs. Observed NEE
predicted NEE
Obs
erve
d
NE
E
-30 -20 -10 0 10
-30
-20
-10
010
R2 = 0.92
RMSE = 0.23
a0 = 0.18 +/- 0.48
a1 = 0.85 +/- 0.63
1:1
best fit
Figure 28a
Figure 28a. 1992-2000 Mid-summer NEE. Five-day aggregates of Model-Ipredicted NEE vs. Observed NEE.
predicted NEE
Obs
erve
d
NE
E
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-6-5
-4-3
-2-1
1992-2000 Mid-summer NEE Model-I vs. Observed
R2 = 0.47RMSE = 0.23a0 = 0.18 +/- 0.48a1 = 0.85 +/- 0.63
Figure 28b
Figure 28b. 1992-2000 Mid-summer daily mean NEE. Model-I predicted NEE vs. Observed NEE. Data usesFive-day aggregates.
best fit
1:1
Predicted NEE
Obs
erve
d N
EE
-4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
9292
9393
9494
95 95
9696
9797
98 98
99 99
0000
1992-2000 Mid-summer NEE. Model-I vs. Observed
R2 = 0.76RMSE = 0.23a0 = 0.18 +/- 0.48a1 = 0.85 +/- 0.63
Figure 28c
Figure 28c. 1992-2000 Mid-summer seasonal mean NEE. Model-0 (black numbers) and Model-I (red numbers) predicted NEE vs. Observed NEE. Data uses five-day aggregates.
Model-I fit statistics
-20
-10
05
10
208 213 218
-15
-50
51
0
223 228 233
-20
-10
05
10
238 243 248
Figure 29a
Figure29a. 1999 Mid-summer five-day aggregates of observed, Model-0, and Model-I NEE. Observed (empty squares), Model-0 (red squares), Model-I (blue diamonds)
1999 Mid-summer NEE
-20
-10
01
0
208 213 218
-20
-15
-10
-50
5
223 228 233
-20
-10
-50
5
238 243 248
Figure 29b
Figure 29b. 1994 Mid-summer five-day aggregates of observed, Model-0, and Model-I NEE. Observed (empty squares), Model-0 (red squares), Model-I (blue diamonds)
1994 Mid-summer NEE
season
R2
2 4 6 8
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
N - dayG - dayR - dayN - allR - allN - nite
Model-0 vs Observations 'real' hours
Model-0 + phen + wdir
Figure 31a
shawn urbanski
Hourly NRG: Model-0 (all the w/all extras) predictions vs observations (real observations, i.e. no gap filling)
season
R2
2 4 6 8
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
N - dayG - dayR - dayN - allR - allN - nite
Seasonal Mean NRG Model-0 vs Observations
Model-0 + phen + wdir + soilM
Figure 31b
shawn urbanski
Seasonal NRG: Model-0 (w/ all the extras) vs. observations (mean of look-up table & diurnal cycle gap filling method)
season
R2
3 4 5 6 7 8
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
N - dayN - allGG - adj
Seasonal Mean NEE and GEE Model-0 vs Observations
Figure 31c
shawn urbanski
Seasonal NEE & GEE. Model-0 vs observed. GEE adjusted is the hokie Model-0 GEE "corrected" for separation error (see text).
Figure 33
day of year
PR
I
110 120 130 140 150 160 170
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
19921993199419951996199719981999200020012002
PAR Ratio Index (PRI) 1992-2002Figure 34
year
R/G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
/yr]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
81
01
21
41
6
GEER
Growing Season (DOY 100-300) GEE and R
Figure 35a
ecological year
R/G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
/yr]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
12
34
GEERNEE
Dormant Season (Oct 28 - Apr 10) GEE and R
Figure 35b
ecological year
R/G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
/yr]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
46
81
0
GEER
Summer (Jun - Aug) GEE and R
Figure 35c
ecological year
Nig
htt
ime
NE
E [
um
ole
CO
2/m
2/s
]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Summer (Jun - Aug) Nighttime NEE
Figure 35d
ecological year
NE
Ep
red
- N
EE
ob
s [u
mo
leC
O2
/m2
/s]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
-10
12
3Summer (Jun - Aug) Daytime Model-0/I NEE residuals
Figure 35e
ecological year
R/G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
/yr]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
GEER
April -May GEE and RFigure 36a
ecological year
R/G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
/yr]
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
GEER
October GEE and R
GEER
Figure 36b
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2LAI
-10
.0-9
.5-9
.0-8
.5-8
.0-7
.5G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
]
98
99
00
0102
Early - Mid Summer GEE vs. LAI
R2 = 0.99p-val = 0
Figure 37a
shawn urbanski
LAI - our measurements in 98 & 99 (peak value), and a subset of the bigfoot measurements in 00-02. I chose bigfoot plots close to our plots (Elizabeth gave me maps). The means are similar if all bigfoot plots are used.doy 161-250
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2LAI
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
Mode
l-0 N
EE
resi
dua
ls [
MgC
/ha
]
98
99
00
01
02
Early - Mid Summer daytime Model-0 NEE vs. LAI
R2 = 0.94p-val = 0.01
Figure 37b
shawn urbanski
see comments for D14a
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2LAI
-0.0
26
-0.0
25
-0.0
24
-0.0
23
-0.0
22
-0.0
21
-0.0
20
GE
E/P
AR
9899
00
01
02
Early - Mid Summer PAR normalized GEE
R2 = 0.72p-val = 0.07
Figure 37c
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2LAI
-12
-11
-10
-9G
EE
[M
gC
/ha
]
98
99
00
0102
ESum - EFall GEE vs. LAI
R2 = 0.99p-val = 0
Figure 37d
shawn urbanski
DOY 161 - 300 otherwise same as D14a
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2LAI
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
Mode
l-0 N
EE
resi
dua
ls [
MgC
/ha
]
98
99
00
01
02
ESum - EFall daytime Model-0 NEE vs. LAI
R2 = 0.98p-val = 0
Figure 37e
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2LAI
-0.0
24
-0.0
22
-0.0
20
-0.0
18
GE
E/P
AR
98
99
0001
02
ESum - EFall PAR normalized GEE
R2 = 0.85p-val = 0.02
Figure 37f
year
ave
rag
e %
N
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Oak Green Foliage %N (Aber & Magill)
R2 = 0.34p-val = 0.03
Figure 38a
shawn urbanski
This uses Aber/Magill green foliage data for hard wood control plots (oak = black oak + red oak)Our only overlap year is 1998 and our red oak & red maples agreed spot on with theirs. 2000 data point is ours. Of course we are missing the important year of 2001.
year
folia
ge
- li
tte
r [%
N]
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Oak Foliage N Translocation(Aber & Magill)
R2 = 0.55p-val = 0.01
Figure 38b
shawn urbanski
Translocation = green foliage %N - litter % Nhardwood control plot oaks (oak = red + black)No Aber/Magill litter data after 1999.OUR litter %N does not agree well with theirs for the two overlap years of 98 & 99. This could be a serious problem and sink any use of their data.
foliage - litter [%N]
R [
kgC
/ha
]
1.35 1.40 1.45
40
00
45
00
50
00
92
93
94
95
9697
98
99
Oak Foliage N Translocation vs. Ecosystem Rearly-mid summer
R2 = 0.84p-val = 0
Figure 38c
foliage - litter [%N]
NE
E r
esi
du
als
(o
bs-
pre
d)
[kg
C/h
a]
1.35 1.40 1.45
-40
0-2
00
02
00
40
06
00
80
0
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Oak Foliage N Translocation vs. Model-0 daytime residuals Rearly-mid summer
R2 = 0.24p-val = 0.22
Figure 38d
foliage - litter [%N]
GE
E/P
AR
1.35 1.40 1.45
-0.0
25
-0.0
23
-0.0
21
92
93
94
95
96
97
9899
Oak Foliage N Translocation vs. PAR normlaized GEEearly-mid summer
R2 = 0.43p-val = 0.08
R2 = 0.43p-val = 0.08
Figure 38e
year
R [
kgC
/ha
/mo
nth
]
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
-40
00
-30
00
-20
00
-10
00
obsM0ibis
Annual (calyr) NEE - observed, Model-0, IBISFigure 39a
year
NE
E [
kgC
/ha
/mo
nth
]
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
05
00
10
00
15
00
20
00
25
00
30
00
obsM0ibis
Winter (Dec-Mar) NEE - observed, Model-0, IBISFigure 39b
year
NE
E [
kgC
/ha
/mo
nth
]
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
-70
00
-60
00
-50
00
-40
00
-30
00
-20
00
-10
00
obsM0ibis
Summer (Jun-Sep) NEE - observed, Model-0, IBISFigure 39c
year
GE
E [
kgC
/ha
/mo
nth
]
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
-14
00
0-1
20
00
-10
00
0-8
00
0-6
00
0
obsM0ibis
Summer (Jun-Sep) GEE - observed, Model-0, IBISFigure 39d
year
NE
E [
kgC
/ha
/mo
nth
]
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
-10
00
-50
00
50
01
00
0
obsM0ibis
Spring (Apr-May) NEE - observed, Model-0, IBISFigure 39e
deep layer soil moisture [%max]
IBIS
GE
E e
rro
r
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-50
00
50
01
00
01
50
02
00
0IBIS monthly GEE error (Jun-Aug) vs. Soil Hydrology Model
R2 = 0.49
Figure 40a
deep layer soil moisture [%max]
IBIS
R e
rro
r
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-50
00
50
0IBIS monthly R error (Jun-Aug) vs. Soil Hydrology Model
R2 = 0.39
Figure 40b
