Robust estimates of soil moisture and latent heat flux coupling strength obtained from triple collocation

Land surface models (LSMs) are often applied to predict the one-way coupling strength between surface soil moisture (SM) and latent heat (LH) flux. However, the ability of LSMs to accurately represent such coupling has not been adequately established. Likewise, the estimation of SM/LH coupling strength using ground-based observational data is potentially compromised by the impact of independent SM and LH measurements errors. Here we apply a new statistical technique to acquire estimates of one-way SM/LH coupling strength which are nonbiased in the presence of random error using a triple collocation approach based on leveraging the simultaneous availability of independent SM and LH estimates acquired from (1) LSMs, (2) satellite remote sensing, and (3) ground-based observations. Results suggest that LSMs do not generally overestimate the strength of one-way surface SM/LH coupling

Representativeness of Eddy-Covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites

Large datasets of greenhouse gas and energy surface-atmosphere fluxes measured with the eddy-covariance technique (e.g., FLUXNET2015, AmeriFlux BASE) are widely used to benchmark models and remote-sensing products. This study addresses one of the major challenges facing model-data integration: To what spatial extent do flux measurements taken at individual eddy-covariance sites reflect model- or satellite-based grid cells? We evaluate flux footprints—the temporally dynamic source areas that contribute to measured fluxes—and the representativeness of these footprints for target areas (e.g., within 250–3000 m radii around flux towers) that are often used in flux-data synthesis and modeling studies. We examine the land-cover composition and vegetation characteristics, represented here by the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), in the flux footprints and target areas across 214 AmeriFlux sites, and evaluate potential biases as a consequence of the footprint-to-target-area mismatch. Monthly 80% footprint climatologies vary across sites and through time ranging four orders of magnitude from 103 to 107 m2 due to the measurement heights, underlying vegetation- and ground-surface characteristics, wind directions, and turbulent state of the atmosphere. Few eddy-covariance sites are located in a truly homogeneous landscape. Thus, the common model-data integration approaches that use a fixed-extent target area across sites introduce biases on the order of 4%–20% for EVI and 6%–20% for the dominant land cover percentage. These biases are site-specific functions of measurement heights, target area extents, and land-surface characteristics. We advocate that flux datasets need to be used with footprint awareness, especially in research and applications that benchmark against models and data products with explicit spatial information. We propose a simple representativeness index based on our evaluations that can be used as a guide to identify site-periods suitable for specific applications and to provide general guidance for data use

Gap-filling eddy covariance methane fluxes:Comparison of machine learning model predictions and uncertainties at FLUXNET-CH4 wetlands

Time series of wetland methane fluxes measured by eddy covariance require gap-filling to estimate daily, seasonal, and annual emissions. Gap-filling methane fluxes is challenging because of high variability and complex responses to multiple drivers. To date, there is no widely established gap-filling standard for wetland methane fluxes, with regards both to the best model algorithms and predictors. This study synthesizes results of different gap-filling methods systematically applied at 17 wetland sites spanning boreal to tropical regions and including all major wetland classes and two rice paddies. Procedures are proposed for: 1) creating realistic artificial gap scenarios, 2) training and evaluating gap-filling models without overstating performance, and 3) predicting half-hourly methane fluxes and annual emissions with realistic uncertainty estimates. Performance is compared between a conventional method (marginal distribution sampling) and four machine learning algorithms. The conventional method achieved similar median performance as the machine learning models but was worse than the best machine learning models and relatively insensitive to predictor choices. Of the machine learning models, decision tree algorithms performed the best in cross-validation experiments, even with a baseline predictor set, and artificial neural networks showed comparable performance when using all predictors. Soil temperature was frequently the most important predictor whilst water table depth was important at sites with substantial water table fluctuations, highlighting the value of data on wetland soil conditions. Raw gap-filling uncertainties from the machine learning models were underestimated and we propose a method to calibrate uncertainties to observations. The python code for model development, evaluation, and uncertainty estimation is publicly available. This study outlines a modular and robust machine learning workflow and makes recommendations for, and evaluates an improved baseline of, methane gap-filling models that can be implemented in multi-site syntheses or standardized products from regional and global flux networks (e.g., FLUXNET)

Author Correction: The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

The following authors were omitted from the original version of this Data Descriptor: Markus Reichstein and Nicolas Vuichard. Both contributed to the code development and N. Vuichard contributed to the processing of the ERA-Interim data downscaling. Furthermore, the contribution of the co-author Frank Tiedemann was re-evaluated relative to the colleague Corinna Rebmann, both working at the same sites, and based on this re-evaluation a substitution in the co-author list is implemented (with Rebmann replacing Tiedemann). Finally, two affiliations were listed incorrectly and are corrected here (entries 190 and 193). The author list and affiliations have been amended to address these omissions in both the HTML and PDF versions

The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data.

The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO2, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible

Upscaling wetland methane emissions from the FLUXNET‐CH4 eddy covariance network (UpCH4 v1.0): model development, network assessment, and budget comparison

Wetlands are responsible for 20%–31% of global methane (CH4) emissions and account for a large source of uncertainty in the global CH4 budget. Data-driven upscaling of CH4 fluxes from eddy covariance measurements can provide new and independent bottom-up estimates of wetland CH4 emissions. Here, we develop a six-predictor random forest upscaling model (UpCH4), trained on 119 site-years of eddy covariance CH4 flux data from 43 freshwater wetland sites in the FLUXNET-CH4 Community Product. Network patterns in site-level annual means and mean seasonal cycles of CH4 fluxes were reproduced accurately in tundra, boreal, and temperate regions (Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency ∼0.52–0.63 and 0.53). UpCH4 estimated annual global wetland CH4 emissions of 146 ± 43 TgCH4 y−1 for 2001–2018 which agrees closely with current bottom-up land surface models (102–181 TgCH4 y−1) and overlaps with top-down atmospheric inversion models (155–200 TgCH4 y−1). However, UpCH4 diverged from both types of models in the spatial pattern and seasonal dynamics of tropical wetland emissions. We conclude that upscaling of eddy covariance CH4 fluxes has the potential to produce realistic extra-tropical wetland CH4 emissions estimates which will improve with more flux data. To reduce uncertainty in upscaled estimates, researchers could prioritize new wetland flux sites along humid-to-arid tropical climate gradients, from major rainforest basins (Congo, Amazon, and SE Asia), into monsoon (Bangladesh and India) and savannah regions (African Sahel) and be paired with improved knowledge of wetland extent seasonal dynamics in these regions. The monthly wetland methane products gridded at 0.25° from UpCH4 are available via ORNL DAAC (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2253)

Representativeness of Eddy-Covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites

Large datasets of greenhouse gas and energy surface-atmosphere fluxes measured with the eddy-covariance technique (e.g., FLUXNET2015, AmeriFlux BASE) are widely used to benchmark models and remote-sensing products. This study addresses one of the major challenges facing model-data integration: To what spatial extent do flux measurements taken at individual eddy-covariance sites reflect model- or satellite-based grid cells? We evaluate flux footprints—the temporally dynamic source areas that contribute to measured fluxes—and the representativeness of these footprints for target areas (e.g., within 250–3000 m radii around flux towers) that are often used in flux-data synthesis and modeling studies. We examine the land-cover composition and vegetation characteristics, represented here by the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), in the flux footprints and target areas across 214 AmeriFlux sites, and evaluate potential biases as a consequence of the footprint-to-target-area mismatch. Monthly 80% footprint climatologies vary across sites and through time ranging four orders of magnitude from 103 to 107 m2 due to the measurement heights, underlying vegetation- and ground-surface characteristics, wind directions, and turbulent state of the atmosphere. Few eddy-covariance sites are located in a truly homogeneous landscape. Thus, the common model-data integration approaches that use a fixed-extent target area across sites introduce biases on the order of 4%–20% for EVI and 6%–20% for the dominant land cover percentage. These biases are site-specific functions of measurement heights, target area extents, and land-surface characteristics. We advocate that flux datasets need to be used with footprint awareness, especially in research and applications that benchmark against models and data products with explicit spatial information. We propose a simple representativeness index based on our evaluations that can be used as a guide to identify site-periods suitable for specific applications and to provide general guidance for data use

Robust estimates of soil moisture and latent heat flux coupling strength obtained from triple collocation

Land surface models (LSMs) are often applied to predict the one-way coupling strength between surface soil moisture (SM) and latent heat (LH) flux. However, the ability of LSMs to accurately represent such coupling has not been adequately established. Likewise, the estimation of SM/LH coupling strength using ground-based observational data is potentially compromised by the impact of independent SM and LH measurements errors. Here we apply a new statistical technique to acquire estimates of one-way SM/LH coupling strength which are nonbiased in the presence of random error using a triple collocation approach based on leveraging the simultaneous availability of independent SM and LH estimates acquired from (1) LSMs, (2) satellite remote sensing, and (3) ground-based observations. Results suggest that LSMs do not generally overestimate the strength of one-way surface SM/LH coupling