1 / 21

Flux–Model–MODIS Evaluation

Flux–Model–MODIS Evaluation. EMDI 3 Working Group April 2002. Dick Olson, Tom Boden, Bob Cook, Lisa Olsen, Steve Margle, many others Oak Ridge National Laboratory* Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. *Managed by the University of Tennessee-Battelle LLC

premala
Download Presentation

Flux–Model–MODIS Evaluation

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. Flux–Model–MODISEvaluation EMDI 3 Working Group April 2002 Dick Olson, Tom Boden, Bob Cook, Lisa Olsen, Steve Margle, many others Oak Ridge National Laboratory* Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA *Managed by the University of Tennessee-Battelle LLC under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy.

  2. Components • NEE – eddy covariance flux towers • NPP – ecosystem field measurements • MODIS – EOS Validation program • Modeled NPP – ad hoc participation • EMDI 3 Prototype exercise: • 3 sites (history of timely data processing) • Harvard Forest – Bill Monger • UMBS – Peter Curtis • Metolius – Bev Law • Scaling issues: • NEE vs NPP • >1 km2 vs point • 0.5 hr vs daily • Comparison statistics: correlations?

  3. Flux-Model-MODIS Comparison • Fluxes:17 towers • Micrometeorology posted near real-time • Gap-filled flux estimates posted annually • Models: 5 models participating (open to others) • Common site characteristics–model driver data • MODIS:7 products for 52 sites(8-day composites) • Surface Temperature, Vegetation Index, LAI, fPAR, Photosynthesis (8-day and annual), Surface Reflectance, BRDF • Sites include Core Validation Sites, Flux Tower Sites, BigFoot Sites, Real Time Validation activity, and LAINet Sites • Format is 7 km x 7 km cutouts in ISIN projection in ASCII files

  4. Re-projecting MODIS DataPark Falls, WI MODIS sinusoidal UTM Integerized Sinusoidal

  5. Harvard Forest, ISIN, all pixels in 5x5 km area: LAI, fPAR, EVI, PSN

  6. Harvard Forest, ISIN, good pixels in 3x3 km area: LAI, fPAR, EVI, PSN

  7. Heterogeneity in MODIS pixels near tower • Metolius • PSN product • All pixels in 3x3 area • Two distinct sets • of PSN values, may be • due to different land • cover types

  8. Lack of Heterogeneity in MODIS pixels near tower • Walker Branch • Pixels with LAI and PSN • All pixels in 5x5km area • MODIS landcover: • broadleaf crops (8 pixels) • broadleaf forest (8 pixels) • needleleaf forest (9 pixels) • No differences between types, may be due to mixed pixels

  9. MODIS Products- Walker Branch PSN fPAR LAI EVI

  10. MODIS Products - Harvard Forest

  11. MODIS PSN 2001 Lotec NEP 2000-01 Lotec / MODIS WB Flux 1995-98

  12. MODIS PSN 2001 BGC NEP 2000-01 BGC / MODIS WB Flux 1995-98

  13. HF Flux 1992-99 MODIS PSN 2001 Lotec NEP 2000-2001 Lotec / MODIS

  14. HF Flux 1992-99 MODIS PSN 2001 BGC NEP 2000-2001 BGC / MODIS

  15. Measured Relative LAI - WB Time to 50% LAI Max as Function of Average Spring Temp. Time to 50% LAI Max as Function of Degree Growing Days

  16. UMBS, ISIN, good pixels in 3x3 km area: LAI, fPAR, EVI, PSN

  17. Metolius, ISIN, good pixels in 3x3 km area: LAI, fPAR, EVI, PSN

  18. Comparison of Flux-Model-MODIS • Walker Branch • MODIS LAI compares favorably to 10-yrs LAI field measurements • Springtime pattern is about the same • Lotec is later • MODIS PSN is earlier • Lotec model NEP is about half measured NEE • Harvard Forest • Springtime pattern is about the same • Lotec is later • MODIS PSN is earlier • Lotec model NEP is about same as measured NEE

More Related