DukeSpace

Energy, water, and carbon fluxes in a loblolly pine stand: Results from uniform and gappy canopy models with comparisons to eddy flux data

DukeSpace

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Katul, Gaby en_US
dc.contributor.author Oren, Ram en_US
dc.contributor.author Stoy, Paul C. en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2011-06-21T17:22:05Z
dc.date.available 2011-06-21T17:22:05Z
dc.date.issued 2009 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Song,Conghe;Katul,Gabriel;Oren,Ram;Band,Lawrence E.;Tague,Christina L.;Stoy,Paul C.;McCarthy,Heather R.. 2009. Energy, water, and carbon fluxes in a loblolly pine stand: Results from uniform and gappy canopy models with comparisons to eddy flux data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 114( ): G04021-G04021. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0148-0227 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/3985
dc.description.abstract This study investigates the impacts of canopy structure specification on modeling net radiation (R-n), latent heat flux (LE) and net photosynthesis (A(n)) by coupling two contrasting radiation transfer models with a two-leaf photosynthesis model for a maturing loblolly pine stand near Durham, North Carolina, USA. The first radiation transfer model is based on a uniform canopy representation (UCR) that assumes leaves are randomly distributed within the canopy, and the second radiation transfer model is based on a gappy canopy representation (GCR) in which leaves are clumped into individual crowns, thereby forming gaps between the crowns. To isolate the effects of canopy structure on model results, we used identical model parameters taken from the literature for both models. Canopy structure has great impact on energy distribution between the canopy and the forest floor. Comparing the model results, UCR produced lower R-n, higher LE and higher A(n) than GCR. UCR intercepted more shortwave radiation inside the canopy, thus producing less radiation absorption on the forest floor and in turn lower R-n. There is a higher degree of nonlinearity between A(n) estimated by UCR and by GCR than for LE. Most of the difference for LE and A(n) between UCR and GCR occurred around noon, when gaps between crowns can be seen from the direction of the incident sunbeam. Comparing with eddy-covariance measurements in the same loblolly pine stand from May to September 2001, based on several measures GCR provided more accurate estimates for R-n, LE and A(n) than UCR. The improvements when using GCR were much clearer when comparing the daytime trend of LE and A(n) for the growing season. Sensitivity analysis showed that UCR produces higher LE and A(n) estimates than GCR for canopy cover ranging from 0.2 to 0.8. There is a high degree of nonlinearity in the relationship between UCR estimates for A(n) and those of GCR, particularly when canopy cover is low, and suggests that simple scaling of UCR parameters cannot compensate for differences between the two models. LE from UCR and GCR is also nonlinearly related when canopy cover is low, but the nonlinearity quickly disappears as canopy cover increases, such that LE from UCR and GCR are linearly related and the relationship becomes stronger as canopy cover increases. These results suggest the uniform canopy assumption can lead to underestimation of R-n, and overestimation of LE and A(n). Given the potential in mapping regional scale forest canopy structure with high spatial resolution optical and Lidar remote sensing plotforms, it is possible to use GCR for up-scaling ecosystem processes from flux tower measurements to heterogeneous landscapes, provided the heterogeneity is not too extreme to modify the flow dynamics. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION en_US
dc.relation.isversionof doi:10.1029/2009JG000951 en_US
dc.subject atmospheric co2 concentration en_US
dc.subject terrestrial biosphere model en_US
dc.subject long-wave en_US
dc.subject radiation en_US
dc.subject tree crown size en_US
dc.subject forest ecosystem en_US
dc.subject stomatal conductance en_US
dc.subject spatial information en_US
dc.subject hydrologic balance en_US
dc.subject reflectance model en_US
dc.subject solar-radiation en_US
dc.subject environmental sciences en_US
dc.subject geosciences, multidisciplinary en_US
dc.title Energy, water, and carbon fluxes in a loblolly pine stand: Results from uniform and gappy canopy models with comparisons to eddy flux data en_US
dc.title.alternative en_US
dc.description.version Version of Record en_US
duke.date.pubdate 2009-12-16 en_US
duke.description.endpage G04021 en_US
duke.description.issue en_US
duke.description.startpage G04021 en_US
duke.description.volume 114 en_US
dc.relation.journal Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record