the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Constraining biospheric carbon dioxide fluxes by combined top-down and bottom-up approaches
Abstract. While the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 mole fractions can be measured with high accuracy, there are still large uncertainties in the attribution of this growth to diverse anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks. One major source of uncertainty is the net flux of carbon dioxide from the biosphere to the atmosphere, the Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE). There are two major approaches to quantifying NEE: top-down approaches that typically use atmospheric inversions, and bottom-up estimates which rely on process-based or data-driven terrestrial biosphere models or inventories. Both approaches have known limitations. Atmospheric inversions produce estimates of NEE that are consistent with the atmospheric CO2 growth rate at regional and global scales, but are highly uncertain at smaller scales. Bottom-up data-driven flux models match local observations of NEE, but have difficulty in accurately upscaling to a global estimate. We combine the two approaches, constraining a bottom-up data-driven flux model trained on meteorological, remotely-sensed, and eddy-covariance data with regional estimates of NEE derived from an ensemble of atmospheric inversions.
We link the two approaches using a region-specific sparse linear model for 18 regions consistent with the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes-2 (RECCAP2) , which allows us to quickly generate regional estimates of NEE based on the data-driven flux model by simulating only a small number of optimally representative pixels. These regional totals then become part of a machine-learning objective function that compares them with top-down regional estimates from an ensemble of atmospheric inverse models. By adding this additional constraint from the top-down objective term, we produce a new “dual-constraint” data-driven flux model that is informative across spatial scales, producing consistent estimates both of the local per-pixel flux and at regional and global scales.
The inferred global terrestrial carbon flux from land, excluding fires and riverine evasion across 2001–2017 is -3.14±1.75 PgC year-1 (±1 σ). This is a strong improvement over the -20.28±1.75 PgC year-1 from the exact same data-driven flux model trained without the additional regional top-down constraint (i.e., single constraint) when compared to current best estimates of the global carbon flux from land. The shift in the carbon flux from land estimated by the model with the additional atmospheric constraint occurs largely in tropical regions where the data-driven flux model is poorly constrained, or affected by biased observations of NEE derived from difficult micrometeorological conditions. In extratropical regions, the estimated NEE from dual and single constraint data-driven flux models are very similar, reflecting the denser observational networks of ecosystem fluxes and atmospheric CO2. Our approach, training a data-driven flux model with multiple constraints at site level and continentally integrated scales, and different temporal resolutions, opens new avenues for data-driven flux models constrained by other observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, making use of the wealth of available Earth observation data.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13970 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13970 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-805', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jul 2023
Honestly speaking, I have conducted research for inverse modeling and eddy covariance observations for more than 10 years, but still feel this MS (egusphere-2023-805) by Upton et al. (2023) is very hard to follow and understand in recent version, including both the logical organizing for different paragraphs and detailed expressions in sentences. This MS is not a bottom-up and top-down based research paper, but a mathematic based way that made use of avalable dataset, and without enough details. Therefore, I do not recommend for publication unless large and significant improvement have been made to improve its reliability and robustness and readability.
First, although the authors combined “bottom-up” CO2 flux and “top-down” atmospheric inversion CO2 flux data set, from my first feeling when go through the introduction and methods sections, it reads like the authors conducted at least one of above approaches. However, after I read through results for quite a few times, it seems the authors only used some mathematic method (i.e. a region-specific sparse linear model) to make use of both datasets and made some adjustment. Hence, the mathematic method is the main advantage, but it has not been descripted in details how to use this method and its advantage when compared with above “bottom-up” and “top-down” methods.
Lines 15-21, “The inferred global terrestrial carbon flux from land, excluding fires and riverine evasion across 2001-2017 is -3.14±1.75 PgC year -1 (±1 σ). This is a strong improvement over the -20.28±1.75 PgC year -1 from the exact same data-driven flux model trained without the additional regional top-down constraint (i.e., single constraint) when compared to current best estimates of the global carbon flux from land.”, the authors said this result is considerably different with another result, and why the readers can believe your results is robust as you said “is a strong improvement”? there are many previous studies that calculated global NEE, how does your results compared with theirs?
Line 60, please give us the extent of recent studies who calculated global NEE here, including both top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Line 70-85, after reading this part, which aim to describe the method the authors used in this MS, I am still confused why only a few sit-scale based regressions can be used to represent whole regional scale? As the authors said this is based on atmospheric inversion results, and the available global NEE products as Carbon Tracker provide NEE at more than 1o, how does this coarse spatial resolution be used with FLUXNET and eddy covariance tower at site scale (i.e. 100m*100m)?
The main assumption in this MS is “The central hypothesis of this study is that individually trained regional sparse linear models can serve this function”, how to certify your hypothesis is robust from site to local and regional scales?
Line 92 “At tower locations the meteorological data is derived from the FLUXNET and ERA5 data,”, the highest spatial resolution of ERA5 is 0.25o (~25 km), and the EC tower site is point scale, so how to evaluate the footprint mismatch between them. And for the section of 2.1, what data is produced by the authors and what is produced by the references? I am still confused here what the authors’ contribution.
Section 2.2, the atmospheric inversion community have found the flux results by different assimilation systems largely varied by both global total NEE, and its magnitude, especially for spatial distributions, which are caused by difference in atmospheric transport models observed concentration, how to choose which is reliable in your research?
Line 111, “These variables are were computed” delete were
Line 113. “and are reconstructed here by the on the percentage of the component PFTs”, it’s hard to follow.
In Figure 2, what’s the reason for the large difference between red, blue lines and green, yellow lines, emissions from rivers as you stated?
Section 5.1, I am very confused why the authors believe atmospheric information (inversion flux) is reasonable at grid scale? Large bias exist even for large regional scales as whole continent or country.
I have not provided coments on the spatial-temporal patterns of NEE, which seems not robust before the authors add more descriptions to verify their method.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-805-RC1 - AC1: 'AC1', Samuel Upton, 23 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-805', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jul 2023
Review of “Constraining biospheric carbon dioxide fluxes by combined top-down and bottom-up approaches” by Samuel Upton et al.
The paper addresses the quantification of Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) from multiple datasets. The concept is a multi-scale approach to estimate NEE fluxes using an additional atmospheric "top-down" constraint to further extrapolate the bottom-up data-driven flux model, originally derived from eddy covariance sites. Overall, the paper is well written, and mostly need to educate more the readers about the author’s innovative framework.
The proposed method seems to provide a substantial contribution to the field by attempting to reach reliable continental scale carbon dioxide flux estimates. However, in order to reach such conclusions, the authors should outline better and more clearly the steps regarding the EC-ATM optimization constraints. This could be done simply by presenting more illustrations of the technical implementation such as, for example the one shown in the appendix.
Specifically, it looks like the various weights employed in the objective functions and parameters such as the region-specific parameter are playing an important role in the optimization and extrapolation from local NEE to RECCAP regions. The considerable change in the global flux suggests that the top-down inversion’s weights will drive the flux estimation at regional scale. It seems important to quantify such effects to further appreciate the multi-scale flux estimate and its uncertainties at the RECCAP-2 level. This is illustrated in Fig. C1 where the EC-ATM can diverge from both the inversion mean and the EC model.
The results seem to be overconfident in regions such as the tropics where there are much fewer observations to drive both the bottom-up and the top-down datasets. This suggests that the uncertainties in top-down inversions is underestimated. I apologized if I missed something and I did not understand fully the evaluation
There must be a way to propagate uncertainties to estimate the combined errors associated with the EC-ATM.
Minor comments:
Section 3.3: Can you expand about how inversions are used here, is the model is trained using 16 out of the 18 years? Does it mean only the ensemble mean is considered?
The shorten word Fig has to be spelled with a dot as Fig.
P2L43: Gaubert et al., showed improvements at the scale of the latitudinal distribution of fluxes, not at the scale of continental-sized regions.
P4L152: “from the as an independent data to test” There are two article the and an.
P8L198: The accent ^ should be on the m (not on the r).
P9L214: “are are” repeated word
P9L235: “The EC-ATM ensemble mean preserves the correlation with the scaled anomalies, producing very similar results to the FLUXCOM RS+METEO results 3.”
The sentence is not clear, what is result 3?
Maybe it is Table 3, I cannot find mentions of Table 3 in the text.
P19L384: xCO2, the x is usually upper case. Maybe you could spell out what are XCO2.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-805-RC2 - AC2: 'AC2', Samuel Upton, 23 Oct 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-805', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jul 2023
Honestly speaking, I have conducted research for inverse modeling and eddy covariance observations for more than 10 years, but still feel this MS (egusphere-2023-805) by Upton et al. (2023) is very hard to follow and understand in recent version, including both the logical organizing for different paragraphs and detailed expressions in sentences. This MS is not a bottom-up and top-down based research paper, but a mathematic based way that made use of avalable dataset, and without enough details. Therefore, I do not recommend for publication unless large and significant improvement have been made to improve its reliability and robustness and readability.
First, although the authors combined “bottom-up” CO2 flux and “top-down” atmospheric inversion CO2 flux data set, from my first feeling when go through the introduction and methods sections, it reads like the authors conducted at least one of above approaches. However, after I read through results for quite a few times, it seems the authors only used some mathematic method (i.e. a region-specific sparse linear model) to make use of both datasets and made some adjustment. Hence, the mathematic method is the main advantage, but it has not been descripted in details how to use this method and its advantage when compared with above “bottom-up” and “top-down” methods.
Lines 15-21, “The inferred global terrestrial carbon flux from land, excluding fires and riverine evasion across 2001-2017 is -3.14±1.75 PgC year -1 (±1 σ). This is a strong improvement over the -20.28±1.75 PgC year -1 from the exact same data-driven flux model trained without the additional regional top-down constraint (i.e., single constraint) when compared to current best estimates of the global carbon flux from land.”, the authors said this result is considerably different with another result, and why the readers can believe your results is robust as you said “is a strong improvement”? there are many previous studies that calculated global NEE, how does your results compared with theirs?
Line 60, please give us the extent of recent studies who calculated global NEE here, including both top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Line 70-85, after reading this part, which aim to describe the method the authors used in this MS, I am still confused why only a few sit-scale based regressions can be used to represent whole regional scale? As the authors said this is based on atmospheric inversion results, and the available global NEE products as Carbon Tracker provide NEE at more than 1o, how does this coarse spatial resolution be used with FLUXNET and eddy covariance tower at site scale (i.e. 100m*100m)?
The main assumption in this MS is “The central hypothesis of this study is that individually trained regional sparse linear models can serve this function”, how to certify your hypothesis is robust from site to local and regional scales?
Line 92 “At tower locations the meteorological data is derived from the FLUXNET and ERA5 data,”, the highest spatial resolution of ERA5 is 0.25o (~25 km), and the EC tower site is point scale, so how to evaluate the footprint mismatch between them. And for the section of 2.1, what data is produced by the authors and what is produced by the references? I am still confused here what the authors’ contribution.
Section 2.2, the atmospheric inversion community have found the flux results by different assimilation systems largely varied by both global total NEE, and its magnitude, especially for spatial distributions, which are caused by difference in atmospheric transport models observed concentration, how to choose which is reliable in your research?
Line 111, “These variables are were computed” delete were
Line 113. “and are reconstructed here by the on the percentage of the component PFTs”, it’s hard to follow.
In Figure 2, what’s the reason for the large difference between red, blue lines and green, yellow lines, emissions from rivers as you stated?
Section 5.1, I am very confused why the authors believe atmospheric information (inversion flux) is reasonable at grid scale? Large bias exist even for large regional scales as whole continent or country.
I have not provided coments on the spatial-temporal patterns of NEE, which seems not robust before the authors add more descriptions to verify their method.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-805-RC1 - AC1: 'AC1', Samuel Upton, 23 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-805', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jul 2023
Review of “Constraining biospheric carbon dioxide fluxes by combined top-down and bottom-up approaches” by Samuel Upton et al.
The paper addresses the quantification of Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) from multiple datasets. The concept is a multi-scale approach to estimate NEE fluxes using an additional atmospheric "top-down" constraint to further extrapolate the bottom-up data-driven flux model, originally derived from eddy covariance sites. Overall, the paper is well written, and mostly need to educate more the readers about the author’s innovative framework.
The proposed method seems to provide a substantial contribution to the field by attempting to reach reliable continental scale carbon dioxide flux estimates. However, in order to reach such conclusions, the authors should outline better and more clearly the steps regarding the EC-ATM optimization constraints. This could be done simply by presenting more illustrations of the technical implementation such as, for example the one shown in the appendix.
Specifically, it looks like the various weights employed in the objective functions and parameters such as the region-specific parameter are playing an important role in the optimization and extrapolation from local NEE to RECCAP regions. The considerable change in the global flux suggests that the top-down inversion’s weights will drive the flux estimation at regional scale. It seems important to quantify such effects to further appreciate the multi-scale flux estimate and its uncertainties at the RECCAP-2 level. This is illustrated in Fig. C1 where the EC-ATM can diverge from both the inversion mean and the EC model.
The results seem to be overconfident in regions such as the tropics where there are much fewer observations to drive both the bottom-up and the top-down datasets. This suggests that the uncertainties in top-down inversions is underestimated. I apologized if I missed something and I did not understand fully the evaluation
There must be a way to propagate uncertainties to estimate the combined errors associated with the EC-ATM.
Minor comments:
Section 3.3: Can you expand about how inversions are used here, is the model is trained using 16 out of the 18 years? Does it mean only the ensemble mean is considered?
The shorten word Fig has to be spelled with a dot as Fig.
P2L43: Gaubert et al., showed improvements at the scale of the latitudinal distribution of fluxes, not at the scale of continental-sized regions.
P4L152: “from the as an independent data to test” There are two article the and an.
P8L198: The accent ^ should be on the m (not on the r).
P9L214: “are are” repeated word
P9L235: “The EC-ATM ensemble mean preserves the correlation with the scaled anomalies, producing very similar results to the FLUXCOM RS+METEO results 3.”
The sentence is not clear, what is result 3?
Maybe it is Table 3, I cannot find mentions of Table 3 in the text.
P19L384: xCO2, the x is usually upper case. Maybe you could spell out what are XCO2.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-805-RC2 - AC2: 'AC2', Samuel Upton, 23 Oct 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
409 | 216 | 34 | 659 | 21 | 18 |
- HTML: 409
- PDF: 216
- XML: 34
- Total: 659
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Markus Reichstein
Fabian Gans
Wouter Peters
Basil Kraft
Ana Bastos
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13970 KB) - Metadata XML