Evaluation of water flux predictive models developed using eddy-covariance observations and machine learning: a meta-analysis
-
Published:2022-09-16
Issue:18
Volume:26
Page:4603-4618
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Shi HaiyangORCID, Luo Geping, Hellwich Olaf, Xie Mingjuan, Zhang Chen, Zhang Yu, Wang Yuangang, Yuan Xiuliang, Ma Xiaofei, Zhang Wenqiang, Kurban Alishir, De Maeyer PhilippeORCID, Van de Voorde TimORCID
Abstract
Abstract. With the rapid accumulation of water flux observations from global
eddy-covariance flux sites, many studies have used data-driven approaches to
model water fluxes, with various predictors and machine learning algorithms
used. However, it is unclear how various model features affect prediction
accuracy. To fill this gap, we evaluated this issue based on records of 139
developed models collected from 32 such studies. Support vector machines (SVMs; average R-squared = 0.82) and RF (random forest; average R-squared = 0.81) outperformed other evaluated
algorithms with sufficient sample size in both cross-study and intra-study
(with the same data) comparisons. The average accuracy of the model applied
to arid regions is higher than in other climate types. The average accuracy
of the model was slightly lower for forest sites (average R-squared = 0.76) than for croplands and grasslands (average R-squared = 0.8 and
0.79) but higher than for shrubland sites (average R-squared = 0.67).
Using Rn/Rs, precipitation, Ta, and the fraction
of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FAPAR) improved the model accuracy. The
combined use of Ta and Rn/Rs is very effective, especially in forests, while
in grasslands the combination of Ws and Rn/Rs is also effective. Random
cross-validation showed higher model accuracy than spatial cross-validation
and temporal cross-validation, but spatial cross-validation is more
important in spatial extrapolation. The findings of this study are promising
to guide future research on such machine-learning-based modeling.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference59 articles.
1. Adams, D. C., Gurevitch, J., and Rosenberg, M. S.: Resampling tests for
meta of ecological data, Ecology, 78, 1277–1283, 1997. 2. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Howell, T. A., and Jensen, M. E.:
Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement
accuracy, Agr. Water Manage., 98, 899–920,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.015, 2011. 3. Anderson, M. C., Allen, R. G., Morse, A., and Kustas, W. P.: Use of Landsat
thermal imagery in monitoring evapotranspiration and managing water
resources, Remote Sens. Environ., 122, 50–65,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.08.025, 2012. 4. Barman, R., Jain, A. K., and Liang, M.: Climate-driven uncertainties in
modeling terrestrial energy and water fluxes: a site-level to global-scale
analysis, Global Change Biol., 20, 1885–1900,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12473, 2014. 5. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., and Rothstein, H. R.: Introduction to meta-analysis, John Wiley & Sons, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386, 2011.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|