the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Detection of Fast-Changing Intra-seasonal Vegetation Dynamics of Drylands Using Solar-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF)
Abstract. Dryland ecosystems are the habitat supporting two billion people on the Earth planet and strongly impact the global terrestrial carbon sink. Vegetation growth in drylands is mainly controlled by water availability with strong intra-seasonal variability. Timely availability of information at such scales (e.g., from days to weeks) is essential for early warning of potential catastrophic impacts of emerging climate extremes on crops and natural vegetation. However, the large-scale monitoring of intra-seasonal vegetation dynamics has been very challenging for drylands. Satellite solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) has emerged as a promising tool to characterize the spatiotemporal dynamics of photosynthetic carbon uptake and has the potential to detect intra-seasonal vegetation growth dynamics. Yet, few studies have evaluated its capability for detecting fast-changing intra-seasonal vegetation dynamics and advantages over traditional, vegetation indices (VIs)-based approaches in drylands. To fill this knowledge gap, this study utilized the vast dryland ecosystems in the Horn of Africa (HoA) as a testbed, to characterize their intra-seasonal dynamics inferred from satellite SIF. HoA is an ideal testbed because its dryland ecosystems have highly dynamic responses to short term environmental changes. The satellite data based analysis was corroborated with a unique in-situ SIF dataset collected in Kenya – so far, the only ground SIF time series collected in the continent of Africa. We found that SIF from TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) with daily revisit frequency identified highly dynamic week-to-week variations in both shrublands and grasslands; such rapid-changing vegetation dynamics corresponded to the up- and down- regulation by the fluctuations of environmental variables (e.g., air temperature, vapor pressure deficit, soil moisture). However, neither reconstructed SIF products nor near-infrared reflectance of terrestrial vegetation (NIRv) from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), which is widely used in literature, was able to capture such fast-changing intra-seasonal variations. The same findings hold at the site scale, where we found only TROPOMI SIF revealed two separate within-season growth cycles in response to extreme soil moisture and rainfall amount and duration, consistent with in-situ SIF measurements. This study generates novel insights on the monitoring of dryland vegetation dynamics and evaluation of their climate sensitivities, enabling development of predictive and scalable understanding of how dryland ecosystems may respond to future climate change and informing future design of effective vegetation monitoring systems for dryland vegetation.
- Preprint
(1450 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1991 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2529', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2024
The paper by Wen et al. examines the performance of in-situ and satellite-derived solar-induced fluorescence (SIF) and vegetation indices in tracking intra-seasonal vegetation dynamics in an African dryland ecosystem. Overall, the paper is well-written and conveys an important finding: TROPOMI SIF aligns well with in-situ SIF measurements in the Horn of Africa (HoA), while other reflectance-based vegetation indices may overlook certain subseasonal vegetation dynamics. These findings have potential implications for understanding dryland carbon fluxes. Given the good shape of the manuscript, I have a few comments to further improve the paper.
Introduction:
- The authors provide an insightful introduction to the importance of drylands and the role of SIF and vegetation indices. However, there is limited discussion on the existing literature concerning SIF applications for tracking dryland GPP or drought/heat stresses. I suggest the authors expand this to provide a more comprehensive background on SIF use in dryland ecosystems.
- Line 78: The IPCC reference can be more specific
Method:
- When filtering satellite SIF measurements, it is unclear whether the authors account for the uncertainties in SIF retrievals (e.g., standard deviations of SIF) provided by the products.
Results:
- There are negative SIF values in both the in-situ observations and the TROPOMI SIF retrievals, as shown in Fig. 2. Since SIF should theoretically be positive, the authors should explain the source of these negative values, such as measurement errors or retrieval limitations.
- Fig. 1(h): The legend with dotted lines does not match the lines in the figure.
- Fig. 7: It might be useful to include a scatter plot showing SIF yield against variables like VPD, soil moisture, or Tair to illustrate how much environmental factors drive variation in SIF yield.
Discussion:
- The authors could further discuss the performance of SIF in tracking dryland vegetation dynamics as reported in previous studies. For instance, Wang et al. (2022) found that NIRv performed better than SIF in capturing GPP in western U.S. drylands due to noise in SIF signals. The results of this study appear to differ somewhat from those of previous studies.
Wang, X., Biederman, J.A., Knowles, J.F., Scott, R.L., Turner, A.J., Dannenberg, M.P., Köhler, P., Frankenberg, C., Litvak, M.E., Flerchinger, G.N. and Law, B.E., 2022. Satellite solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and near-infrared reflectance capture complementary aspects of dryland vegetation productivity dynamics. Remote sensing of environment, 270, p.112858.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2529-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jiaming Wen, 15 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2529', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Oct 2024
This manuscript examines the potential of Solar-Induced Fluorescence (SIF) in detecting fast changes in vegetation function and structure in dryland ecosystems. The authors use the Horn of Africa as an example to compare the performance of different satellite SIF data products in representing the fasting-changing intra-seasonal vegetation dynamics in an abnormally wet year. First, the authors cross-compared the satellite SIF products against tower-based SIF. They found that native satellite SIF data matches tower-based SIF best. The reconstructed SIF products do not show intra-seasonal changes observed from the tower. Then, the authors use climate data and field images to explain the observed inter-seasonal changes. The results show that the native satellite SIF data is mechanistically linked to the vegetation function, which makes this data a good candidate for future real-monitoring vegetation dynamics.
The manuscript is overall well written. Here are some major comments I have:
- I think the manuscript is missing some detailed explanation of the choice of temporal scaling, especially since the temporal resolution is a key component in this manuscript. All results are presented as 8-day averages. However, the manuscript does not explain why 8-day is picked given other options are available. This may not be intuitive for readers who are not familiar with TROPOMI.
- The manuscript did not present how SIF from different spatial resolutions and footprints are cross-compared, nearest pixel?
- I think authors should cite papers to support their explanations for physiological changes, e.g., lines 270-271. In some locations, it would be better to include drylands/Africa-related references in addition to global-scale references, e.g., line 50.
- The definition of vegetation function can be ambiguous. In line 57, Li et al., 2024 used “vegetation function” to include both physiology and structure. In this manuscript, vegetation function seems to only refer to physiology.
- The manuscript introduces new terminology in results and discussion, such as NIRvP and SIFyield. They need to be better introduced before the results.
Some typographical suggestions:
- Lines 215-216 are not clear and seem to miss a word.
- Line 221 “...variation in SIF…”, do you mean reconstructed SIF?
- Line 243, this line needs elaborations on why anomalous vegetation dynamics are challenging to measure. Is the anomaly or vegetation dynamics in general making it challenging?
Therefore, I recommend a major revision of this manuscript before it can be accepted for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2529-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jiaming Wen, 15 Nov 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
272 | 64 | 16 | 352 | 42 | 6 | 12 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 64
- XML: 16
- Total: 352
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1