1 / 38

Progress with land DA

This project aims to test, force, and assimilate remote sensing (RS) estimates into process models to improve their performance and diagnostic variables. By comparing diagnostic variables such as fAPAR and LAI, this study evaluates the consistency and effectiveness of different RS products. The project also addresses the barriers to effective data assimilation and explores the potential advantages of using RS data, such as the inclusion of multiple EO and treatment of uncertainties.

turbeville
Download Presentation

Progress with land DA

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. Progress with land DA P. Lewis UCL Geography & NERC NCEO

  2. Integration of RS products into process models • Testing: evaluate model performance via diagnostic variables • Forcing: using RS estimates as new updates of state variables • Assimilation: adjusting model parameters or initial conditions so that diagnostic variables simulated by the model is close to RS estimates • What are the requirements of the models/EO?

  3. Testing: compare ‘diagnostics’ (e.g. fAPAR, LAI) Brut et al. 2009 Biogeosciences ISBA MODIS CYCLOPES LAI as diagnostic variable for comparison Pragmatic: rescale and smooth (‘bias’) Essentially use EO phenology

  4. Barriers to effective DA • Why are products different? • Different assumptions/treatments/(datasets) • In any case inconsistent with model assumptions … • Radiance DA • DA/comparisons with low level EO • Advantages: • ‘control’ over data interpretation assumptions • i.e. definition of observation operator: consistency ? • (potentially) include multiple EO (in consistent manner) • More easily treat uncertainties++

  5. Initial efforts: Quaife et al. 2008 (+) Flux tower site 1: Oregon (‘Young’) Shaded crown Illuminated crown Illuminated soil Shaded soil T. Quaife, P. Lewis, M. DE Kauwe, M. Williams, B. Law, M. Disney, P. Bowyer (2008), Assimilating Canopy Reflectance data into an Ecosystem Model with an Ensemble Kalman Filter, Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(4),1347-1364.

  6. Issues • NEP good, but actually over-estimate GPP … • Partial structural consistency • ‘lumped’ ecosystem model (only one canopy layer) • ‘effective’ LAI • Even though tried to account for canopy-scale clumping • Fixed parameters (e.g. leaf chlorophyll): • Because of radiometric trade-offs between LAI & e.g. chlorophyll • Because assume (e.g.) SLA known (& fixed) • Because of partial structural consistency

  7. Leaf Area Index • Area based measure of leaf amount • Related to mass-based through SLA • Generally assumed constant SLA Kattge et al., 2011

  8. Data Assimilation and EOLDAS • Make all terms EO sensitive to dynamic • Weak constraint 4DVAR Lewis et al. 2012 RSE

  9. EOLDAS

  10. EOLDAS++ • Follow-on project (2012-2014) • Integrate with model (with Reading) • Deal with snow/soil water • Build in JULES-like vegetation model and Observation operators • Include passive microwave obs. op.

  11. Regularisation for albedo Quaife and Lewis 2010

  12. 2005 8-dailies BRDF f0 (SW, NIR, VIS= r,g,b)

  13. Change detection: disturbance Relax constraint at discontinuities

  14. Disturbance

  15. Disturbance

  16. Disturbance • Current: • Edge-preserving DA in time • Next • Extend spatially • Multiple constraints (FRE) • Build in model interpretation • Initially FCC • Most of tools in place to track state within DA system • To estimate biomass loss and recovery

  17. Guanter et al. (2012) RSE accepted: Fs GOSAT

  18. Fs Modelling

  19. First model • Initial exploration with regulariser • Compare to environmental constraints • Multi-model DA • MPI-GPP, PEM, Fs data (linear GPP model) • Use to constrain extrapolation of MPI observations • Data quite noisy • How far to go with GOSAT?

  20. Summary • weak constraint: regularisation (xval): • Enable to treat ~all terms EO sensitive to • E.g. chlorophyll etc. • Build in disturbance/change • Time/(space) • Multiple model/data constraints • Working out how to deal with new observations (Fs)

  21. Where next? • EO-LDAS++ • Exploit EOLDAS ideas in model-data integration • More observation operators & underlying process model • Structural consistencies / learn from TRY (Terrabites) • Disturbance DA • Build up: spatial; FRE; FCC; process model … • testbed & high res tracking system for C emissions and interaction with vegetation (e.g REDD+ work with Edinburgh) • Fs? • More testing, examining at higher spatial & time res. (DA) • Integrate with rest of DA work • Interface to atmospheric models?

  22. Thank you

  23. Conclusion • Integration of RS products into process models • Testing; forcing; assimilation • Main EO role so far constraining LC & timing (phenology, snow) • Barriers to progress … • Model/interpretation inconsistencies / fixed parameters • Need to work on this in observations & models • Important tools • Weak constraint DA • ‘low level’ DA

  24. Conclusions 1/2 • LAI products still not optimally used • Lack of uncertainty information

  25. Conclusions 2/2 • Clumping major issue • Potentially accessible from EO • Or can model impacts even in simple models • Minimum requirement: LAI and crown cover… • BUT do we need to deal with it? • Or is effective LAI (i.e. including clumping) sufficient? • If so, significant implications for EO efforts • And model testing • (Keep in mind need for direct/diffuse on fAPAR/albedo)

  26. Thank you

  27. Canopy Scaling of leaf process Sellers 1992 canopy process scaling model: • Assume leaf N, Vmax, Vm profiles distributed according to fAPAR profile • obtain scalar P from (top) leaf to canopy scale process (assim., resp, transp.) wv=0.2

  28. Canopy Photosynthesis If horizontal heterogeneity in LAI (Sellers, 1992) • Spatial variation in fAPAR • But fAPAR scales ~linearly • If Ac,ketc constant • Aci ~ fAPARi/k • So Ac (etc) scale linearly • (in the absence of variations in forcings and process rates) • BUT does not nec. follow if other leaf process to canopy scalings assumed • E.g. per layer A in JULES • Different assumptions about leaf N vertical distribution

  29. scattering asymmetry: impact • Often assume scattering isotropic • For diffuse fluxes, e.g. d-Eddington • radiatively account for • asymmetry in phase fn • by mapping to equivalent LAI and w • e.g. NIR: w=0.9, e.g. f=0.3, L’=0.73L, w’=0.86 f: fractional scattering in fwd peak

  30. Problems in the retrieval of variables : balance betweenaccuracy and precision Selection of solutions within a Look Up Table (LUT). Measurement uncertainties Median of cases within ±1σ Best reflectance match Very little bias but large scattering Accurate, not precise Smaller scattering but larger biases Precise, not (always) accurate Importance of: - the retrievalmethod - knowledge of uncertainties (model and measurements) - the prior distribution of input variables

  31. LAI anomalies

  32. Shoot-scale clumping reduces apparent LAI pshoot=0.47 (scots pine) p2<pcanopy Shoot-scale clumping reduces apparent LAI Smolander & Stenberg RSE 2005

  33. Scaling properties Weiss et al. 2000

  34. Differences depending on directionality

  35. Clumping impact Govind et al. 2010

  36. Also interest in non-photosynthetic vegetation e.g. for fire

More Related