the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Microclimate mapping using novel radiative transfer modelling
Florian Zellweger
Eric Sulmoni
Johanna T. Malle
Andri Baltensweiler
Tobias Jonas
Niklaus E. Zimmermann
Christian Ginzler
Dirk N. Karger
Pieter De Frenne
David Frey
Clare Webster
Abstract. Climate data matching the scales at which organisms experience climatic conditions are often missing. Yet, such data on microclimatic conditions are required to better understand climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Here we combine a network of microclimate temperature measurements across different habitats and vertical heights with a novel radiative transfer model to map daily temperatures during the vegetation period at 10 meter spatial resolution across Switzerland. Our data reveals strong horizontal and vertical variability in microclimate temperature, particularly for maximum temperatures at 5 cm above the ground and within the topsoil. Compared to macroclimate conditions as measured by weather stations outside forests, diurnal air and topsoil temperature ranges inside forests were reduced by up to 3.0 and 7.8 °C, respectively, while below trees outside forests, e.g. in hedges and below solitary trees, this buffering effect was 1.8 and 7.2 °C. We also found that in open grasslands, maximum temperatures at 5 cm above ground are on average 3.4 °C warmer than that of macroclimate, suggesting that in such habitats heat exposure close to the ground is often underestimated when using macroclimatic data. Spatial interpolation was achieved by using a hybrid approach based on linear mixed effects models with input from detailed radiation estimates that account for topographic and vegetation shading, as well as other predictor variables related to the macroclimate, topography and vegetation height. After accounting for macroclimate effects, microclimate patterns were primarily driven by radiation, with particularly strong effects on maximum temperatures. Results from spatial block cross-validation revealed predictive accuracies as measured by RSME’s ranging from 1.18 to 3.43 °C, with minimum temperatures generally being predicted more accurately than maximum temperatures. The microclimate mapping methodology presented here enables a more biologically relevant perspective when analysing climate-species interactions, which is expected to lead to a better understanding of biotic and ecosystem responses to climate and land use change.
- Preprint
(19189 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Florian Zellweger et al.
Status: open (until 28 Sep 2023)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1549', Ilya Maclean, 23 Jul 2023
reply
This is a useful contribution the microclimate modelling and mapping literature and, overall, a well-executed paper. However, the framing could be sharpened in a few places:
- The need for microclimate data is presented primarily as a scale issue, but it is not just that. There are consistent differences between near-ground / near vegetation / below canopy climatic conditions and macroclimate irrespective of scale. The manuscript presents high-resolution estimates of temperatures at multiple heights, so arguably has two benefits.
- In stating that a remaining challenge in microclimate mapping is incorporating radiation transfer through vegetation canopies, you somewhat simplify what existing microclimate models do. The mentioned models do account for solar angles and relative diffuse / direct fraction in their published form, and in the newest form on Github include a two-stream radiative transfer model. They don’t do is use a finite element approach – interactions with directional radiation are instead handled by characterising the foliage as having a continuous distribution of inclination angles. I think the CanRad model used in this paper is a finite-element model (though this is not explicitly stated), so there are benefits to using it. However, these benefits may be lost as when predicting microclimate across Switzerland, you use simpler proxies that may not be any better than those included in existing models. It would be helpful to present more clearly what the particular benefits of your approach are.
Additionally, Fig. 4 appears to show very good correspondence between observations and predictions, which is encouraging. However, I was left wondering how much of this was because most of the variance is driven by macroclimate. What happens if you plot the observed and predicted offsets against one another?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1549-CC1 -
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1549', MIchael Kearney, 27 Aug 2023
reply
This is nice work. Note that Maclean and Klinges's microclimc package has algorithms for dealing with solar radiation through canopies and attenuation of wind speed. It might also be interesting to see how well point-based models that incorporate physical processes more explicitly (e.g. heat flow through heterogeneous soils, soil moisture) compare. The NicheMapR microclimate model (see Kearney and Porter, 2017 and Kearney et al., 2020) is such a point model and can take your sky-view factors into account for longwave radiation as well as take your adjusted solar radiation as a direct input. It doesn't incorporate lateral movement of heat which your statistical approach does. It would be interesting to see how well each approach does for time series at a point given the different emphases on statistical and physical depiction.
Kearney, M. R., & Porter, W. P. (2017). NicheMapR - an R package for biophysical modelling: The microclimate model. Ecography, 40(5), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02360Kearney, M. R., Gillingham, P. K., Bramer, I., Duffy, J. P., & Maclean, I. M. D. (2020). A method for computing hourly, historical, terrain-corrected microclimate anywhere on earth. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 11(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13330Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1549-CC2 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1549', Jonas Lembrechts, 29 Aug 2023
reply
This is a very elegant microclimate modelling exercise, well written and explained, and thoroughly done. The authors have a good dataset, well-thought-through explanatory variables and a waterproof modelling approach, and the end-result are very useful high-resolution (spatially and temporally) maps of microclimate across the whole of Switzerland.
In my opinion, this is how microclimate modelling should be done! I have very few comments and questions. Some of the questions I THINK I know the answer for, but it would make things easier for me as a reader if they would be spelled out in the text.
I am very happy with the way radiation was treated in this analysis, showing us a way to a future with more accurate microclimate models at large scales.
I also applaud the use of thermocouples for aboveground temperature measurements. This is the first in a long series of reviews I made where aboveground temperature was measured with thermocouples, and where I did not have to warn for the risks associated with low-cost sensor measurements under direct sunlight. In that regard, your comparative test (Appendix A) is awesome and very useful. However, I wonder if comparing only the daily maxima is sufficient. If at any point sun would reach the thermocouple and heat it, you could be observing a sudden unexpected peak. As I only have that value and nothing more to base myself on, I can’t judge of something like that happened. What about also providing RMSE for daily mean and perhaps hourly-level RMSEs?
L36-37: more biologically relevant than what?
L129: is there a maximum width for a hedge, after which you would consider it a forest? Also, could you specify how many sensors under hedges and how many sensors under single trees you had?
L134-135: a bit clunky formulated: does this mean forest plots were only sampled in these two regions (I guess not)? And what are the different forest types there? Is that point on forest types relevant if what you actually say is that you did not sample outside of forests there? Does the ‘as a result’ on L136 refer to the lack of non-forested plots in those two regions, as this is counterintuitive then. I think in this part you are trying a bit too hard to justify a limitation of the design, creating confusion in the process. I suggest to shorten this and just state it dryly.
L158: also cool: georeferencing at a 1 m resolution – much needed for high-resolution microclimate modelling in the future!
L161: the longest vegetation period – I guess that only refers to 2022?
L161: could you say ‘the few remaining snow days within the April-October period’? Or something? My main question is in fact – was there snow between April and October and if so, how much, but I don’t think we need exact numbers.
L278: what is meant with ‘local’ catchment and ‘local’ slope? Is this within a radius or everything that’s higher up? I assume local means something different for catchment and slope?
L290: you say ‘spatial predictor variables’, but isn’t macroclimate temperature (and rain sum) spatiotemporal (and isn’t it key to have a temporal component in the model if you pool all daily data? Or did you make separate models for each day? If the former, wouldn’t we need a DOY-parameter to correct for seasonal effects?
L294: I understand you don’t use the offsets for modelling, but I have a hard time finding in the methods what you DO use the offsets for. Or am I overlooking things?
L305: are these two-variable splits and 500 trees following conventions? Best to add if so!
L316: comparison with which metric?
L330: could you quantify ‘particularly high’ here in the text, e.g. using the standard deviation or 5-95% interval? Just for the ease of reading.
L404: can you point us to the effect of hedges on the figure?
L478: perhaps still worth mentioning that while the daily resolution is awesome, the next step would be to have predictor variables such as forest cover temporarily explicit as well?
L480: these are monthly maps for each of the years between 2012 and 2021, right, and not averaged across that decadal period? Just to be sure…
I really love Table B1! This is an excellent example of the point I aim to make repeatedly, that with relatively few, smartly located sensors, a large area can be covered accurately.
Here and there some language errors (e.g., L115: 4% of the country is), I am assuming someone else will catch these in the next steps
Table D1: I have a very hard time understanding how the offset ranges can be so massively different (around -2 versus around -10 and more, roughly speaking) between the different models. Shouldn’t they all have more or less the same offsets if the predictions are the same. Or does that mean predictions are around 10°C different for the different methods? That’d be super worrisome, no?
Figure 4: these are daily observed and predicted temperatures? Is there a correction for spatial and temporal autocorrelation needed (if you have a large amount of days at the same location, these will be strongly correlated and might inflate the models, for example. Or, are these separate models for each day? See my question above!)
Kind regards,
Jonas Lembrechts
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1549-RC1
Florian Zellweger et al.
Florian Zellweger et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
236 | 99 | 14 | 349 | 6 | 11 |
- HTML: 236
- PDF: 99
- XML: 14
- Total: 349
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1