the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Temporal variability of observed and simulated gross primary productivity, modulated by vegetation state and hydrometeorological drivers
Abstract. The gross primary production (GPP) of the terrestrial biosphere is a key source of variability in the global carbon cycle. It is modulated by hydrometeorological drivers (i.e., shortwave radiation, air temperature, vapor pressure deficit and soil moisture) and the vegetation state (i.e., canopy greenness, leaf area index) at instantaneous to interannual timescales. In this study, we set out to evaluate the ability of GPP-models to capture this variability. 11 models were considered, which rely purely on remote sensing data (RS-driven), meteorological data (meteo-driven, e.g., dynamic global vegetation models; DGVMs) or a combination of both (hybrid, e.g., light-use efficiency models; LUE). They were evaluated using in situ observations at 61 eddy covariance sites, covering a broad range of herbaceous and forest biomes.
The results illustrated how the determinant of temporal variability shifts from meteorological variables at sub-seasonal timescales to biophysical variables at seasonal and interannual scale. RS-driven models lacked the sensitivity to the dominant drivers at short timescales (i.e., shortwave radiation and vapor pressure deficit), and failed to capture the decoupling of photosynthesis and canopy greenness (e.g., in evergreen forests). Conversely, meteo-driven models accurately captured the variability accross timescales, despite the challenges in the prognostic simulation of the vegetation state. Largest errors were found in water-limited sites, where the accuracy of the soil moisture dynamics determines the quality of the GPP estimates. In arid herbaceous sites, canopy greenness and photosynthesis were more tightly coupled, resulting in improved results with RS-driven models. Hybrid models capitalized on the combination of RS observations and meteorological information. LUE models were among the most accurate models to monitor GPP across all biomes, despite their simple architecture.
Overall, we conclude that the combination of meteorological drivers and remote sensing observations is required to yield an accurate reproduction of the spatio-temporal variability of GPP. To further advance the performance of DGVMs, improvements in the soil moisture dynamics and vegetation evolution are needed.
-
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
(2773 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2773 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-994', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2023
The manuscript aims to verify the variance exhibited by common GPP models and products in repsonse to the driving factors of GPP. The manuscript is well written in general. In my personal opinion, the abstract and discussion sections are excellent as they nicely summarize the key results in a crisp manner. I have few queries/suggestions for the consideration of the authors.
1) What is the reason for not including the accuracy assessment of the models? Is it because of the lack of independent data for validation? Idea about absolute accuracy would further help the readers to know about the GPP models.
2) Why the downscaled SIF product was considered in this study? It will have the effect of LUE model used in the downscaling and any artefacts of downscaling will be present. Spatial resolution is an issue especially when the SIF based GPP has to be compared with flux tower observations. But the downscaling procedure might have affected the spatiotemporal characeteristics of the SIF product affecting the variance metrics studied in this work. If the effect of SIF to be studied, it is better to use the original datasets without much modification.
3) What is the temporal frequency of the reflectance data (SPV) that were used to derive vegetation indices? I understand it to be 16-days. If yes, then it will strongly impact the variances at daily and monthly scales. Why can't daily/weekly data be used?
4) As you rightly pointed out, empirical models (Vegetation Indices models) must be developed for each landcover/climate zone combination. There can be significant improvement in the results had it been the case rather than having one generalized regression model. Landcover specific models can be developed to see if there are any changes in the performance of the VI-based models.
5) In Section 2.2, it will be beneficial to add a brief summary of the tests conducted to test the validity of ERA-5 data in place of in-situ observations. If not in the main article, include it as appendix.
6) In page 6, Equation (4), was PAR considered as a constant fraction of incoming solar radiation? A brief mention about PAR estimation will be beneficial.
7) Equation 6 can be explained with an example.
8) When referring to the appendix in the main text, always refer the figure or table to be looked upon. It became little difficult to identify which figure/table to refer. Further, it was difficult to read the figures given in the appendix. Please improve the readability of all the figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-994-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
Dear reviewer,
thank you for reviewing this manuscript in detail.
In response to these recommendations, some (supplementary) material was added to the manuscript:
- Accuracy assessment of the GPP models
- Evaluation of PFT-specific regression models
- Tests to evaluate the validity of ERA-5 forcing data
Furthermore, the manuscript was revised to answer the questions that were raised.See the supplement file for a detailed rebuttal.
Best regards
Jan
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-994', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2023
De Pue and others investigate multiple methods for estimating GPP against observations. The results are insightful and well written and I recommend the manuscript be published after considering the following rather minor comments.
How is 'homogeneous' defined in section 2.1?
Explaining the Papagiannopoulou et al., 2018 delineations would be helpful because these are not in common usage. I see now that they are defined in the text; pointing to this text would help.
Please use the multiplication sign instead of the star for formal equations
table 2: 'shortwave' can be used
the y axis in figure 3 is a bit confusing to me regarding the '-' symbols (and fig. 4, and 5)
Fig. 7 is a bit much to look at and I wonder if this analysis would be better off in an appendix.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-994-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
Dear reviewer,
thank you for reviewing this manuscript. The recommendations were helpful to improve the quality of our work.
We have revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed response to the comments is found in the attachment.Best regards
Jan
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-994', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2023
The manuscript aims to verify the variance exhibited by common GPP models and products in repsonse to the driving factors of GPP. The manuscript is well written in general. In my personal opinion, the abstract and discussion sections are excellent as they nicely summarize the key results in a crisp manner. I have few queries/suggestions for the consideration of the authors.
1) What is the reason for not including the accuracy assessment of the models? Is it because of the lack of independent data for validation? Idea about absolute accuracy would further help the readers to know about the GPP models.
2) Why the downscaled SIF product was considered in this study? It will have the effect of LUE model used in the downscaling and any artefacts of downscaling will be present. Spatial resolution is an issue especially when the SIF based GPP has to be compared with flux tower observations. But the downscaling procedure might have affected the spatiotemporal characeteristics of the SIF product affecting the variance metrics studied in this work. If the effect of SIF to be studied, it is better to use the original datasets without much modification.
3) What is the temporal frequency of the reflectance data (SPV) that were used to derive vegetation indices? I understand it to be 16-days. If yes, then it will strongly impact the variances at daily and monthly scales. Why can't daily/weekly data be used?
4) As you rightly pointed out, empirical models (Vegetation Indices models) must be developed for each landcover/climate zone combination. There can be significant improvement in the results had it been the case rather than having one generalized regression model. Landcover specific models can be developed to see if there are any changes in the performance of the VI-based models.
5) In Section 2.2, it will be beneficial to add a brief summary of the tests conducted to test the validity of ERA-5 data in place of in-situ observations. If not in the main article, include it as appendix.
6) In page 6, Equation (4), was PAR considered as a constant fraction of incoming solar radiation? A brief mention about PAR estimation will be beneficial.
7) Equation 6 can be explained with an example.
8) When referring to the appendix in the main text, always refer the figure or table to be looked upon. It became little difficult to identify which figure/table to refer. Further, it was difficult to read the figures given in the appendix. Please improve the readability of all the figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-994-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
Dear reviewer,
thank you for reviewing this manuscript in detail.
In response to these recommendations, some (supplementary) material was added to the manuscript:
- Accuracy assessment of the GPP models
- Evaluation of PFT-specific regression models
- Tests to evaluate the validity of ERA-5 forcing data
Furthermore, the manuscript was revised to answer the questions that were raised.See the supplement file for a detailed rebuttal.
Best regards
Jan
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-994', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2023
De Pue and others investigate multiple methods for estimating GPP against observations. The results are insightful and well written and I recommend the manuscript be published after considering the following rather minor comments.
How is 'homogeneous' defined in section 2.1?
Explaining the Papagiannopoulou et al., 2018 delineations would be helpful because these are not in common usage. I see now that they are defined in the text; pointing to this text would help.
Please use the multiplication sign instead of the star for formal equations
table 2: 'shortwave' can be used
the y axis in figure 3 is a bit confusing to me regarding the '-' symbols (and fig. 4, and 5)
Fig. 7 is a bit much to look at and I wonder if this analysis would be better off in an appendix.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-994-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
Dear reviewer,
thank you for reviewing this manuscript. The recommendations were helpful to improve the quality of our work.
We have revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed response to the comments is found in the attachment.Best regards
Jan
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan De Pue, 03 Oct 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Observed and modelled GPP at 61 eddy covariance sites (2007-2018) Jan De Pue, Sebastian Wieneke, Ana Bastos, José Miguel Barrios, Liyang Liu, Philippe Ciais, Alirio Arboleda, Rafiq Hamdi, Maral Maleki, Fabienne Maignan, Françoise Meulenberghs, Ivan Janssens, and Manuela Balzarolo https://zenodo.org/record/7928514
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
293 | 133 | 19 | 445 | 11 | 12 |
- HTML: 293
- PDF: 133
- XML: 19
- Total: 445
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Sebastian Wieneke
Ana Bastos
José Miguel Barrios
Liyang Liu
Philippe Ciais
Alirio Arboleda
Rafiq Hamdi
Maral Maleki
Fabienne Maignan
Françoise Gellens-Meulenberghs
Ivan Janssens
Manuela Balzarolo
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2773 KB) - Metadata XML