the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Intercomparison of biogenic CO2 flux models in four urban parks in the city of Zurich
Abstract. Quantifying the capacity and dynamics of urban carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and carbon sequestration is becoming increasingly relevant in the development of integrated monitoring systems for urban greenhouse gas emissions. There are multiple challenges towards these goals, such as the partitioning of atmospheric measurements of CO2 fluxes to anthropogenic and biospheric processes, the insufficient understanding of urban biospheric processes, and the applicability of existing biosphere models to urban systems. In this study we applied four biosphere models of varying complexity (diFUME, JSBACH, SUEWS, VPRM) in four urban parks in the city of Zurich and evaluated their performance against in-situ measurements collected over almost two years on park trees and lawns. In addition, we performed an uncertainty analysis of gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (Reco), and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 based on the differences between the estimates of the four models and compared the estimated uncertainties and biospheric fluxes with the monthly anthropogenic CO2 emissions of a wide urban area surrounding the four parks. The results showed that despite the large differences in model architecture, there was considerable agreement in the seasonal and diurnal GPP, Reco and NEE estimates. Larger discrepancies between the four models were found for lawn GPP compared to tree GPP, while for Reco the differences between lawns and tree areas were similar. On an annual scale, all models agreed, on average, that lawns acted as CO2 sources and tree-covered areas as CO2 sinks during the simulation period, with the exception of diFUME which simulated both tree and lawn areas as CO2 sources. diFUME and VPRM were more accurate in capturing the onset of the tree leaf growth in spring compared to JSBACH and SUEWS. On the other hand, JSBACH and SUEWS simulated soil water availability more accurately than the satellite-derived water index used by VPRM. The in-situ observations revealed a very high spatial variability in lawn Reco across the park areas. All models underestimated the lawn Reco during spring in sunny mowed locations, whereas the model simulations were closer to the observed Reco at un-mowed, partially shaded locations. The mean monthly uncertainties of biogenic NEE reached 1.1 μmol m-2 s-1, which is 13.4 % of the magnitude of the total CO2 balance over the studied area during the month of June. This balance was composed of a mean anthropogenic flux of 8.7 μmol m-2 s-1 and a mean biospheric flux of -0.5 μmol m-2 s-1. Overall, this study highlights the importance of properly accounting for the biogenic CO2 fluxes and their uncertainties in urban CO2 balance studies, especially during the vegetation growing season, and shows that even simple models, such as VPRM, can adequately simulate the urban biospheric fluxes when appropriately parameterized.
- Preprint
(2898 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2475', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Nov 2024
This manuscript presents a valuable first systematic comparison of four biosphere models (diFUME, JSBACH, SUEWS, VPRM) for simulating CO2 fluxes in urban parks. The study makes a good contribution by evaluating these models against comprehensive in-situ measurements collected over two years in four Zurich parks. The research addresses important knowledge gaps in urban carbon monitoring and model evaluation. The methodology combines multiple observation types with a well-designed model comparison framework.While the manuscript shows promise, several key areas require attention before publication. Below I outline major concerns regarding model architecture and implementation, followed by specific technical suggestions.## Major Comments### Model Architecture and Process RepresentationThe manuscript would benefit from:- A more comprehensive comparison of core model mechanisms- Clear explanation of how each model transforms inputs into biogenic flux outputs- Detailed coverage of key process differences, particularly:- GPP calculations from radiation and vegetation parameters- Soil moisture influences on photosynthesis and respiration- Temperature effects on respiration- Phenology implementation approachesTo facilitate this comparison, please include:- Process flow diagrams for each model- Comparative table of key equations and methodological approaches- Discussion of how process representation differences impact model performance across conditions### SUEWS Configuration ConcernsAs a key member of the SUEWS development team, I have specific concerns about the model configuration:1. Forcing Data Level- Current: Near-surface measurements (2m) used to force SUEWS- Required: Forcing data from above roughness sublayer (3-5x mean roughness element height)- Impact: 2m measurements are inappropriate for this purpose2. LAI Configuration- Issue: Figure A1a shows modelled LAI plateau suggesting maximum LAI not properly adjusted- Need: Clarification or correction of LAI parameterisation## Technical Improvements Needed1. Figures and Tables- Figure 1: Enhance map label readability- Figure 2b: Correct caption misrepresenting Reco measurements- Table 2: Include temporal aggregation methods2. Other presentation improvements- Standardise CO2 flux units throughout paper- Define abbreviations (LSWI, EVI) at first use- Include model parameter sets in data availability sectionCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2024-2475-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stavros Stagakis, 11 Dec 2024
We would like to sincerely thank Referee #1 for their time in reviewing this manuscript and for their positive feedback. We found the provided comments and suggestions very constructive for improving this paper. Our responses are included in the attached file, along with the updated figures, Tables and supplementary material.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stavros Stagakis, 11 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2475', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2024
I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Intercomparison of Biogenic CO₂ Flux Models in Four Urban Parks in the City of Zurich", and I am pleased to find that this study is a pioneering effort in urban carbon-cycle modeling. This study applied four models in four urban parks in the city of Zurich and used in-situ observations to evaluate the models. This novel research stands out as it applies and evaluates a range of biogenic CO₂ flux models, offering important insights into urban biosphere carbon dynamics and the uncertainty analysis for different model approaches. The study’s findings are timely and contribute to a critical need for comprehensive carbon cycle assessments within urban settings. Thus, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication, with minor revisions as outlined below:
1. Clarify model comparison methodology (page 9): The methods section provides a detailed description of the four models used; however, a clearer explanation of the criteria and rationale for selecting each model would enhance comprehension. In other words, it would be helpful to introduce different types of models and why those four models were selected in this study.
2. Add justification for normalization in SWC analysis (page 14, line 380): The rationale for normalizing soil water content (SWC) in lawn areas is stated briefly. I suggest elaborating on this choice to strengthen the interpretation of temporal variability across models. Maybe some descriptions can be added into the method section.
3. Detail on seasonal effects in sap flow observations (page 15, lines 410–425): The observed sap flow seasonality was insightful. Expanding on how seasonal drought impacts this data would be beneficial for understanding tree physiology under varying moisture conditions. Also, it is interesting that why soil moisture was so stable from October to May with a high variability of precipitation?
4. Figure 4 (page 20, line 515): Consider specifying which of the Reco values in the figure pertain to sunny versus shaded locations. This adjustment would clarify the observed seasonal discrepancies across locations.
5. Addressing discrepancies in model outputs (page 19, line 490): While the manuscript discusses the general trends of model outputs, a summary or discussion of the causes behind significant discrepancies (e.g., between VPRM and diFUME) would provide a balanced perspective on model reliability.
6. Technical correction on figure legends (various figures): For consistency and readability, please ensure that all figure legends use uniform units (e.g., μmol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹ vs. g m-2 d-1) and that legends describe all variables used.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2475-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stavros Stagakis, 11 Dec 2024
Data sets
Dataset for the preprint: "Intercomparison of biogenic CO2 flux models in four urban parks in the city of Zurich" (0.1) [Data set] S. Stagakis et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13222637
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
264 | 90 | 20 | 374 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 264
- PDF: 90
- XML: 20
- Total: 374
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1