IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v466y2022ics0304380022000278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling terrestrial net ecosystem exchange using machine learning techniques based on flux tower measurements

Author

Listed:
  • Abbasian, Hassan
  • Solgi, Eisa
  • Mohsen Hosseini, Seyed
  • Hossein Kia, Seyed

Abstract

Identifying the complex relationships of Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) of CO2, as an underlying factor of land surface, and atmosphere interactions is extremely important to the dynamic of carbon fluxes. Assessment of the model-based estimation of land-atmosphere carbon flux across various plant functional types (PFTs) can support the accurate identification of the carbon cycle and the adaptation and mitigation of climate change programs. Five different machine learning methods named Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) and Random Forest (RF) were used to predict daily NEE magnitude. In this study, 24 sites classified into four PFTs of Deciduous Broadleaf Forest (DBF), Evergreen Needle-leaf Forest (ENF), Mixed Forest (MF) and Grassland (GRA) were examined through ground-based flux tower data. The numbers of sites were six, four, six and eight for DBF, ENF, MF and GRA respectively, while measurement periods varied from two to thirteen years. The model calibration and validation were carried out using 70%and 30% of the data-set, respectively. The models’ performances were assessed using statistical indices including the coefficient of determination (R2), the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), bias error (Bias) and root mean square error (RMSE) through Python software. Based on statistical indices, the models showed different levels of capability when analyzing data from the DBF, ENF, MF and GRA sites. Among the models, RF showed the best performance, MLR showed the poorest performance, while SVM, GBM and DT models all had moderate responses. The effect of both air and soil temperatures, as the state variables, were examined to assess model performance. Whether soil temperature is included in the model plays a more important role in the performance of the models in grassland than in forest. Soil temperature inclusion, as an input variable, improved the models’ performance about 14% in grassland, while it improved performance 2.4%, 2.4% and 3.5% in ENF, MF and DBF, respectively. Finally, to assess the models' performances, the NEE behavior in terms of over- or under- estimation was investigated across each PFT and over various phenological periods. The results indicate that high uncertainty occurs between the 140th and 220th days of the Julian calendar for forested areas and between the 120th and 210thdays for grassland.

Suggested Citation

  • Abbasian, Hassan & Solgi, Eisa & Mohsen Hosseini, Seyed & Hossein Kia, Seyed, 2022. "Modeling terrestrial net ecosystem exchange using machine learning techniques based on flux tower measurements," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:466:y:2022:i:c:s0304380022000278
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.109901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380022000278
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.109901?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xianming Dou & Yongguo Yang & Jinhui Luo, 2018. "Estimating Forest Carbon Fluxes Using Machine Learning Techniques Based on Eddy Covariance Measurements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, January.
    2. Hanqing Ma & Chunfeng Ma & Xin Li & Wenping Yuan & Zhengjia Liu & Gaofeng Zhu, 2020. "Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses of Flux-based Ecosystem Model towards Improvement of Forest GPP Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kadukothanahally Nagaraju Shivaprakash & Niraj Swami & Sagar Mysorekar & Roshni Arora & Aditya Gangadharan & Karishma Vohra & Madegowda Jadeyegowda & Joseph M. Kiesecker, 2022. "Potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) Applications in Biodiversity Conservation, Managing Forests, and Related Services in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Cai, Jianchao & Xu, Kai & Zhu, Yanhui & Hu, Fang & Li, Liuhuan, 2020. "Prediction and analysis of net ecosystem carbon exchange based on gradient boosting regression and random forest," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    3. Guo, Hui & Zhou, Xiao & Dong, Yi & Wang, Yahui & Li, Sien, 2023. "On the use of machine learning methods to improve the estimation of gross primary productivity of maize field with drip irrigation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    4. Nanyan Zhu & Chen Liu & Andrew F. Laine & Jia Guo, 2020. "Understanding and Modeling Climate Impacts on Photosynthetic Dynamics with FLUXNET Data and Neural Networks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, March.
    5. Jasna Petković & Nataša Petrović & Ivana Dragović & Kristina Stanojević & Jelena Andreja Radaković & Tatjana Borojević & Mirjana Kljajić Borštnar, 2019. "Youth and forecasting of sustainable development pillars: An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-25, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:466:y:2022:i:c:s0304380022000278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.