the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development of a Model Framework for Terrestrial Carbon Flux Prediction: the Regional Carbon and Climate Analytics Tool (RCCAT) Applied to Non-tidal Wetlands
Abstract. Wetlands play a pivotal role in carbon sequestration but emit methane (CH4), creating uncertainty in their net climate impact. Although process-based models offer mechanistic insights into wetland dynamics, they are computationally expensive, uncertain, and difficult to upscale. In contrast, data-driven models provide a scalable alternative by leveraging extensive datasets to identify patterns and relationships, making them more adaptable for large-scale applications. However, their performance can vary significantly depending on the quality and representativeness of the data, as well as the model design, which raises questions about their reliability and generalizability in complex wetland systems. To address these issues, we present a data-driven framework for upscaling wetland CO2 and CH4 emissions, across a range of machine learning models that vary in complexity, validated against an extensive observational dataset from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We show that artificial intelligence (AI) approaches, including Random Forests, gradient boosting methods (XGBoost, LightGBM), Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Recurrent Neural Networks (GRU, LSTM), outperform linear regression models, with RNNs standing out, achieving an R2 of 0.71 for daily CO2 flux predictions compared to 0.62 for linear regression, and an R2 of 0.60 for CH4 flux predictions compared to 0.54 for linear regression. Despite that, interannual variability is less well captured, with annual mean absolute error of 193 gC m-2 yr-1 for CO2 fluxes and 11 gC-CH4 m-2 yr-1 for CH4 fluxes. By integrating vertically-resolved atmospheric, subsurface, and spectral reflectance information from readily available sources, the model identifies key drivers of wetland CO2 and CH4 emissions and enables regional upscaling. These findings demonstrate the potential of AI methods for upscaling, providing practical tools for wetland management and restoration planning to support climate mitigation efforts.
- Preprint
(1888 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(117 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-361', Toni Viskari, 15 Apr 2025
reply
This is a review for the manuscript "Development of a Model Framework for Terrestrial Carbon Flux Prediction: the Regional Carbon and Climate Analytics Tool (RCCAT) Applied to Non-tidal Wetlands" submitted by Brereton et al. In this work multiple machine learning methods are tested within an established framework using a long measurement dataset from three sites on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In the examination, not only is the performance evaluated, but also the practical benefit of additional complexity.
For me, this was a well written manuscript that explains clearly the motivation for the work, how it was done and how the results should be interpreted. Overall, I thought the work here was so excellently presented that I almost feel guilty about the few minor notes I have below as I do not wish it to come across as just looking for something to be critical of. My notes, though, are so simply to address that I feel comfortable listing this as a recommendation for minor revisions.
Line 381: "After selecting LSTM as the model of choice..."
This paragraph belongs to the Methods as it explains how the work is done with very little with the actual results.
Figure 3: The lines in the legends here need to be thicker as in its current presentation, it is very difficult, at least for me, to gather with a quick glance which color represents which line. Additionally I would recommend reconsidering using, for example, red and blue instead of blue and green as the shades applied here are a bit too close to each other.
Figure 5: This figure should just be moved to supplemental material. There is just far too much empty space here some of the locations with data in it are so small that I had to look at the figure for a long while to be certain if it was even there. Note that while I am critical of this, I also cannot think of a better way to visually present this kind of map data.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-361-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
97 | 23 | 6 | 126 | 19 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 97
- PDF: 23
- XML: 6
- Total: 126
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1