1 / 20

Upscaling – Strata Accuracy and Recent Measurements

Explore methods such as Flux Area Decomposition, Canopy Tower Models, and Chamber Scaling to analyze ecosystem components and enhance aggregate understanding. Evaluate accuracy through aggregation templates and high-resolution classification for better ecological insights. Uncertainty in parameters and state flux via plant-environment models is addressed for various ecosystem types like alder, conifer, shrub/sphagnum bog, and more. Recent studies provide valuable data for ecosystem modeling and comparison with tools like SiB2 and Biome-BGC models.

ebrandt
Download Presentation

Upscaling – Strata Accuracy and Recent Measurements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Upscaling – Strata Accuracy and Recent Measurements P. Bolstad, B. Cook, J. Martin

  2. Bottom Up Scaling The aggregate is the sum of the parts What are the parts? Uncertainty Model logic Parameters State

  3. Flux = S (GPP – R) via plant-environment models Regional landcover (WISCLAND) new study our previous other previous young ericacae mature alnus

  4. Alder Fen Clearcut Lowland Conifer Shrub/sphagnum Bog

  5. Three Upscaling Approaches • Flux Area Decomposition (WLEF Tall Tower – W. Wang) • Canopy Tower Model (regional network of 9 towers – A. Desai) • Chamber Scaling (plant/soil measurements and models – B. Cook)

  6. Flux Area Decomposition Fluxes at the WLEF tower are a weighted average of NEE of component types Weight for ecosystem type i footprint NEE for ecosystem type i n-total types Measured flux at height zm and time t

  7. Flux Area Decomposition

  8. Evaluating the Aggregation Template WLEF

  9. Ecosystem Class Accuracy 142 points, 104 field visited, 28 photo-interpreted IKONOS WISCLAND MODIS Ecosystem Class Ac.% Upland Conifer 59 Aspen/Birch 88 Upland Hardwood 48 Upland Shrub 0 Upland Grass 27 Lowland Conifer 54 Lowland Deciduous 18 Lowland Shrub 52 Wet Meadow 0 Open Water -- Bare/Road -- Mean Accuracy = 71% Ecosystem Class Ac.% Upland Conifer 0 Upland Hardwood 0 Mixed Forest 42 Upland Shrub 0 Grassland 0 Permanent Wetland 0 Mean Accuracy = 28% Ecosystem Class Ac.% Upland Conifer 46 Aspen/Birch 69 Upland Hardwood 100 Upland Shrub 6 Upland Grass 100 Lowland Conifer 60 Lowland Deciduous -- Lowland Shrub 93 Wet Meadow 0 Open Water -- Bare/Road -- Mean Accuracy = 65%

  10. High Resolution Classification Low sedge Clearcut Alder Cedar Cedar Ash/Elm Larix Int. Aspen Maple/basswood

  11. Extreme Structural Variability Within Type

  12. Conclusions We don’t know much - what does age, species, and stocking matter? A multi-classification modeling comparison – SiB2, Biome-BGC, others? 2 sample/sq m dual return lidar – structure High accuracy photo interpretation

  13. FINIS

More Related