Fusion of Multiple Models for Improving Gross Primary Production Estimation With Eddy Covariance Data Based on Machine Learning

被引:9
作者
Tian, Zhenkun [1 ]
Yi, Chuixiang [2 ,3 ]
Fu, Yingying [4 ]
Kutter, Eric [2 ]
Krakauer, Nir Y. [5 ,6 ]
Fang, Wei [7 ]
Zhang, Qin [8 ]
Luo, Hui [9 ]
机构
[1] China Univ Labor Relat, Sch Appl Technol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] CUNY, Queens Coll, Sch Earth & Environm Sci, Flushing, NY USA
[3] CUNY, Grad Ctr, Earth & Environm Sci Dept, New York, NY USA
[4] Beijing Technol & Business Univ, Sch Math & Stat, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] CUNY, Dept Civil Engn, New York, NY USA
[6] CUNY, NOAA CREST, New York, NY USA
[7] Pace Univ, Dyson Coll Arts & Sci, Dept Biol, NYC, New York, NY USA
[8] Dalian Univ Technol, Inst Water & Environm Res, Dalian, Peoples R China
[9] Beijing Normal Univ, State Key Lab Earth Surface Proc & Resource Ecol, Beijing, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
light use efficiency; gross primary production; machine learning; eddy covariance; model fusion; NET ECOSYSTEM EXCHANGE; LIGHT-USE EFFICIENCY; ENERGY-BALANCE CLOSURE; INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY; TERRESTRIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; VEGETATION INDEX; SPRUCE FORESTS; CARBON BALANCE; CO2; EXCHANGE; HEAT-FLUX;
D O I
10.1029/2022JG007122
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) represents the magnitude of CO2 uptake through vegetation photosynthesis, and is a key variable for carbon cycles between the biosphere and atmosphere. Light use efficiency (LUE) models have been widely used to estimate GPP for its physiological mechanisms and availability of data acquisition and implementation, yet each individual GPP model has exhibited large uncertainties due to input errors and model structure, and further studies of systematic validation, comparison, and fusion of those models with eddy covariance (EC) site data across diverse ecosystem types are still needed in order to further improve GPP estimation. We here compared and fused five GPP models (VPM, EC-LUE, GOL-PEM, CHJ, and C-Fix) across eight ecosystems based on FLUXNET2015 data set using the ensemble methods of Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF) separately. Our results showed that for individual models, EC-LUE gave a better performance to capture interannual variability of GPP than other models, followed by VPM and GLO-PEM, while CHJ and C-Fix were more limited in their estimation performance. We found RF and SVM were superior to BMA on merging individual models at various plant functional types (PFTs) and at the scale of individual sites. On the basis of individual models, the fusion methods of BMA, SVM, and RF were examined by a five-fold cross validation for each ecosystem type, and each method successfully improved the average accuracy of estimation by 8%, 18%, and 19%, respectively.
引用
收藏
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Improving the Estimation of Gross Primary Productivity across Global Biomes by Modeling Light Use Efficiency through Machine Learning [J].
Kong, Daqian ;
Yuan, Dekun ;
Li, Haojie ;
Zhang, Jiahua ;
Yang, Shanshan ;
Li, Yue ;
Bai, Yun ;
Zhang, Sha .
REMOTE SENSING, 2023, 15 (08)
[32]   Application of Machine Learning Algorithm and Remote-sensed Data to Estimate Forest Gross Primary Production at Multi-sites Level [J].
Lee, Bora ;
Kim, Eunsook ;
Lim, Jong-Hwan ;
Kang, Minseok ;
Kim, Joon .
KOREAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, 2019, 35 (06) :1117-1132
[33]   Uncertainty analysis of gross primary production upscaling using Random Forests, remote sensing and eddy covariance data [J].
Tramontana, Gianluca ;
Ichii, Kazuito ;
Camps-Valls, Gustau ;
Tomelleri, Enrico ;
Papale, Dario .
REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 168 :360-373
[34]   Estimation of the gross primary production of an old-growth temperate mixed forest using eddy covariance and remote sensing [J].
Wu, J. B. ;
Xiao, X. M. ;
Guan, D. X. ;
Shi, T. T. ;
Jin, C. J. ;
Han, S. J. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, 2009, 30 (02) :463-479
[35]   Modeling spatially explicit fire impact on gross primary production in interior Alaska using satellite images coupled with eddy covariance [J].
Huang, Shengli ;
Liu, Heping ;
Dahal, Devendra ;
Jin, Suming ;
Welp, Lisa R. ;
Liu, Jinxun ;
Liu, Shuguang .
REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 2013, 135 :178-188
[36]   Improving gap-filling performance for CH4 fluxes of eddy covariance data by combining marginal distribution sampling and machine learning algorithm over paddy fields [J].
Ma, Linhua ;
Yu, Qianan ;
Cui, Yuanlai ;
Liu, Bo ;
Tian, Wenxiang ;
Liao, Bin ;
Liu, Luguang ;
Dong, Wei ;
Huang, Jie .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2025, 510
[37]   Global Validation of a Process-Based Model on Vegetation Gross Primary Production Using Eddy Covariance Observations [J].
Liu, Dan ;
Cai, Wenwen ;
Xia, Jiangzhou ;
Dong, Wenjie ;
Zhou, Guangsheng ;
Chen, Yang ;
Zhang, Haicheng ;
Yuan, Wenping .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (11)
[38]   Modelling gross primary production in semi-arid Inner Mongolia using MODIS imagery and eddy covariance data [J].
John, Ranjeet ;
Chen, Jiquan ;
Noormets, Asko ;
Xiao, Xiangming ;
Xu, Jianye ;
Lu, Nan ;
Chen, Shiping .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, 2013, 34 (08) :2829-2857
[39]   Global comparison of light use efficiency models for simulating terrestrial vegetation gross primary production based on the La Thuile database [J].
Yuan, Wenping ;
Cai, Wenwen ;
Xia, Jiangzhou ;
Chen, Jiquan ;
Liu, Shuguang ;
Dong, Wenjie ;
Merbold, Lutz ;
Law, Beverly ;
Arain, Altaf ;
Beringer, Jason ;
Bernhofer, Christian ;
Black, Andy ;
Blanken, Peter D. ;
Cescatti, Alessandro ;
Chen, Yang ;
Francois, Louis ;
Gianelle, Damiano ;
Janssens, Ivan A. ;
Jung, Martin ;
Kato, Tomomichi ;
Kiely, Gerard ;
Liu, Dan ;
Marcolla, Barbara ;
Montagnani, Leonardo ;
Raschi, Antonio ;
Roupsard, Olivier ;
Varlagin, Andrej ;
Wohlfahrt, Georg .
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY, 2014, 192 :108-120
[40]   Remote estimation of gross primary production in maize and support for a new paradigm based on total crop chlorophyll content [J].
Peng, Yi ;
Gitelson, Anatoly A. ;
Keydan, Galina ;
Rundquist, Donald C. ;
Moses, Wesley .
REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 2011, 115 (04) :978-989