4.7 Article

Improved dryland carbon flux predictions with explicit consideration of water-carbon coupling

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-021-00308-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture
  3. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire Stennis project [1016938 (ARZT-1390130-M12-222)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DryFlux is a product that combines in situ carbon flux measurements with remote sensing and meteorological observations using machine learning, accurately predicting the variability of carbon uptake in dryland ecosystems. This approach can serve as an improved benchmark for earth system models in drylands, prompting a more sensitive consideration of the impact of water limitation on the carbon cycle.
Dryland ecosystems are dominant influences on both the trend and interannual variability of the terrestrial carbon sink. Despite their importance, dryland carbon dynamics are not well-characterized by current models. Here, we present DryFlux, an upscaled product built on a dense network of eddy covariance sites in the North American Southwest. To estimate dryland gross primary productivity, we fuse in situ fluxes with remote sensing and meteorological observations using machine learning. DryFlux explicitly accounts for intra-annual variation in water availability, and accurately predicts interannual and seasonal variability in carbon uptake. Applying DryFlux globally indicates existing products may underestimate impacts of large-scale climate patterns on the interannual variability of dryland carbon uptake. We anticipate DryFlux will be an improved benchmark for earth system models in drylands, and prompt a more sensitive accounting of water limitation on the carbon cycle. Upscaling in situ carbon flux measurements using remotely sensed and meteorological observations in a machine learning algorithm leads to improved estimates of average uptake, and interannual variability in global drylands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据