Gap-Filling Eddy Covariance Latent Heat Flux: Inter-Comparison of Four Machine Learning Model Predictions and Uncertainties in Forest Ecosystem

Environmental monitoring using satellite remote sensing is challenging because of data gaps in eddy-covariance (EC)-based in situ flux tower observations. In this study, we obtain the latent heat flux (LE) from an EC station and perform gap filling using two deep learning methods (two-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks) and two machine learning (ML) models (support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF)), and we investigate their accuracies and uncertainties. The average model performance based on ~25 input and hysteresis combinations show that the mean absolute error is in an acceptable range (34.9 to 38.5 Wm(-2)), which indicates a marginal difference among the performances of the four models. In fact, the model performance is ranked in the following order: SVM > CNN > RF > LSTM. We conduct a robust analysis of variance and post-hoc tests, which yielded statistically insignificant results (p-value ranging from 0.28 to 0.76). This indicates that the distribution of means is equal within groups and among pairs, thereby implying similar performances among the four models. The time-series analysis and Taylor diagram indicate that the improved two-dimensional CNN captures the temporal trend of LE the best, i.e., with a Pearson's correlation of >0.87 and a normalized standard deviation of ~0.86, which are similar to those of in situ datasets, thereby demonstrating its superiority over other models. The factor elimination analysis reveals that the CNN performs better when specific meteorological factors are removed from the training stage. Additionally, a strong coupling between the hysteresis time factor and the accuracy of the ML models is observed.

Automated summary

This study fills in missing data using two deep learning methods and two machine learning models, revealing marginal differences in performance among the four models, with support vector machine performing the best. Time-series analysis and Taylor diagram show that the improved two-dimensional CNN captures the temporal trend of LE the best.