Author
Listed:
- Wu, Jianghua
- Roulet, Nigel T.
- Moore, Tim R.
- Lafleur, Peter
- Humphreys, Elyn
Abstract
Peatlands contain approximately 25% of the global soil carbon (C), despite covering only 3% of the earth's land surface. In order to evaluate the role of peatlands in global C cycling, models of ecosystem biogeochemistry are required, but peatland ecosystems present a number of unique challenges, particularly how to deal with the large variability that occurs at scales of one to several metres. In models, spatial variability is considered either explicitly for each individual unit and the outputs averaged, referred to as flux upscaling, or implicitly by weighting model parameters by the fractional occurrence of the individual units, referred to as parameter upscaling. The advantage of parameter upscaling is that it is much more computationally efficient: a requirement for hemispheric scale simulations. In this study we determined the differences between modelling a raised bog peatland with hummock–hollow microtopography using flux and parameter upscaling. We used the McGill Wetland Model (MWM), a process-based ecosystem C model for peatlands, configured for hummocks and hollows separately and then a weighted mixture of both. The simulated output based on flux and parameter upscaling was compared with eddy-covariance tower measurements. We found that net ecosystem production (NEP) for hollows was much larger than that for hummocks because total ecosystem respiration (TER) for hummocks was greater while gross primary production (GPP) did not differ significantly between the two topographic features. However, despite differences in components of NEP between hummocks and hollows, there was no statistically significant difference between the NEP based on flux and parameter upscaling using the MWM. Both flux and parameter upscaling show equivalent capability to capture the magnitude, direction, seasonality and inter-annual variability. The root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) are 0.66, 0.45, and 0.49gCm−2day−1, respectively for GPP, TER and NEP based on the flux upscaling, while 0.67, 0.44, and 0.48gCm−2day−1, respectively based on the parameter upscaling. The degree of agreement (d*) is 0.96, 0.97, and 0.88, respectively for GPP, TER and NEP based on the flux upscaling, while 0.96, 0.97, and 0.89, respectively based on the parameter upscaling. This result suggests that differences in processes caused by peatland microtopography scale linearly, which means an ecosystem-level model set-up (i.e. parameter upscaling scheme), is sufficient to simulate the C cycling.
Suggested Citation
Wu, Jianghua & Roulet, Nigel T. & Moore, Tim R. & Lafleur, Peter & Humphreys, Elyn, 2011.
"Dealing with microtopography of an ombrotrophic bog for simulating ecosystem-level CO2 exchanges,"
Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(4), pages 1038-1047.
Handle:
RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:222:y:2011:i:4:p:1038-1047
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.07.015
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Gong, Jinnan & Wang, Kaiyun & Kellomäki, Seppo & Zhang, Chao & Martikainen, Pertti J. & Shurpali, Narasinha, 2012.
"Modeling water table changes in boreal peatlands of Finland under changing climate conditions,"
Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 244(C), pages 65-78.
- Muhammad Kamangar & Ozgur Kisi & Masoud Minaei, 2023.
"Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Carbon Sequestration in Different Ecosystems of Iran and Its Relationship with Agricultural Droughts,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, April.
- Gong, Jinnan & Kellomäki, Seppo & Wang, Kaiyun & Zhang, Chao & Shurpali, Narasinha & Martikainen, Pertti J., 2013.
"Modeling CO2 and CH4 flux changes in pristine peatlands of Finland under changing climate conditions,"
Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 263(C), pages 64-80.
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:222:y:2011:i:4:p:1038-1047. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.