Abstract
AbstractLarge datasets of carbon dioxide, energy, and water fluxes were measured with the eddy-covariance (EC) technique, such as FLUXNET2015. These datasets are widely used to validate remote-sensing products and benchmark models. One of the major challenges in utilizing EC-flux data is determining the spatial extent to which measurements taken at individual EC towers reflect model-grid or remote sensing pixels. To minimize the potential biases caused by the footprint-to-target area mismatch, it is important to use flux datasets with awareness of the footprint. This study analyze the spatial representativeness of global EC measurements based on the open-source FLUXNET2015 data, using the published flux footprint model (SAFE-f). The calculated annual cumulative footprint climatology (ACFC) was overlaid on land cover and vegetation index maps to create a spatial representativeness dataset of global flux towers. The dataset includes the following components: (1) the ACFC contour (ACFCC) data and areas representing 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% ACFCC of each site, (2) the proportion of each land cover type weighted by the 80% ACFC (ACFCW), (3) the semivariogram calculated using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) considering the 80% ACFCW, and (4) the sensor location bias (SLB) between the 80% ACFCW and designated areas (e.g. 80% ACFCC and window sizes) proxied by NDVI. Finally, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the representativeness of each site from three aspects: (1) the underlying surface cover, (2) the semivariogram, and (3) the SLB between 80% ACFCW and 80% ACFCC, and categorized them into 3 levels. The goal of creating this dataset is to provide data quality guidance for international researchers to effectively utilize the FLUXNET2015 dataset in the future.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference89 articles.
1. Port, U., Brovkin, V. & Claussen, M. The influence of vegetation dynamics on anthropogenic climate change. Earth System Dynamics. 3(2), 233–243 (2012).
2. Dale, V. H. The relationship between land-use change and climate change. Ecological Applications. 7(3), 753–769 (1997).
3. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth System Science Data. 14(11), 4811–4900 (2022).
4. Gao, Y. et al. Determining dominating control mechanisms of inland water carbon cycling processes and associated gross primary productivity on regional and global scales. Earth-Science Reviews. 213, (2021).
5. He, M., Sun, Y. & Han, B. Green Carbon Science: Efficient Carbon Resource Processing, Utilization, and Recycling towards Carbon Neutrality. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition. 61, 15 (2022).