Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

D. D. Baldocchi

Publications and source records attributed to D. D. Baldocchi.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982-2006

Shifts in the timing of spring phenology are a central feature of global change research. Long-term observations of plant phenology have been used to track vegetation responses to climate variability but are often limited to particular species and locations and may not represent synoptic patterns. Satellite remote sensing is instead used for continental to global monitoring. Although numerous methods exist to extract phenological timing, in particular start-of-spring (SOS), from time series of reflectance data, a comprehensive intercomparison and interpretation of SOS methods has not been conducted. Here, we assess 10 SOS methods for North America between 1982 and 2006. The techniques include consistent inputs from the 8 km Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer NDVIg dataset, independent data for snow cover, soil thaw, lake ice dynamics, spring streamflow timing, over 16 000 individual measurements of ground-based phenology, and two temperature-driven models of spring phenology. Compared with an ensemble of the 10 SOS methods, we found that individual methods differed in average day-of-year estimates by ±60 days and in standard deviation by ±20 days. The ability of the satellite methods to retrieve SOS estimates was highest in northern latitudes and lowest in arid, tropical, and Mediterranean ecoregions. The ordinal rank of SOS methods varied geographically, as did the relationships between SOS estimates and the cryospheric/hydrologic metrics. Compared with ground observations, SOS estimates were more related to the first leaf and first flowers expanding phenological stages. We found no evidence for time trends in spring arrival from ground- or model-based data; using an ensemble estimate from two methods that were more closely related to ground observations than other methods, SOS trends could be detected for only 12% of North America and were divided between trends towards both earlier and later spring.

Global Change Biology↗

Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods

Recent projections of climatic change have focused a great deal of scientific and public attention on patterns of carbon (C) cycling as well as its controls, particularly the factors that determine whether an ecosystem is a net source or sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Net ecosystem production (NEP), a central concept in C-cycling research, has been used by scientists to represent two different concepts. We propose that NEP be restricted to just one of its two original definitions—the imbalance between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER). We further propose that a new term—net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB)—be applied to the net rate of C accumulation in (or loss from [negative sign]) ecosystems. Net ecosystem carbon balance differs from NEP when C fluxes other than C fixation and respiration occur, or when inorganic C enters or leaves in dissolved form. These fluxes include the leaching loss or lateral transfer of C from the ecosystem; the emission of volatile organic C, methane, and carbon monoxide; and the release of soot and CO 2 from fire. Carbon fluxes in addition to NEP are particularly important determinants of NECB over long time scales. However, even over short time scales, they are important in ecosystems such as streams, estuaries, wetlands, and cities. Recent technological advances have led to a diversity of approaches to the measurement of C fluxes at different temporal and spatial scales. These approaches frequently capture different components of NEP or NECB and can therefore be compared across scales only by carefully specifying the fluxes included in the measurements. By explicitly identifying the fluxes that comprise NECB and other components of the C cycle, such as net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and net biome production (NBP), we can provide a less ambiguous framework for understanding and communicating recent changes in the global C cycle.

Ecosystems↗

Comparing nocturnal eddy covariance measurements to estimates of ecosystem respiration made by scaling chamber measurements at six coniferous boreal sites

During the growing season, nighttime ecosystem respiration emits 30–100% of the daytime net photosynthetic uptake of carbon, and therefore measurements of rates and understanding of its control by the environment are important for understanding net ecosystem exchange. Ecosystem respiration can be measured at night by eddy covariance methods, but the data may not be reliable because of low turbulence or other methodological problems. We used relationships between woody tissue, foliage, and soil respiration rates and temperature, with temperature records collected on site to estimate ecosystem respiration rates at six coniferous BOREAS sites at half-hour or 1-hour intervals, and then compared these estimates to nocturnal measurements of CO 2 exchange by eddy covariance. Soil surface respiration was the largest source of CO 2 at all sites (48–71%), and foliar respiration made a large contribution to ecosystem respiration at all sites (25–43%). Woody tissue respiration contributed only 5–15% to ecosystem respiration. We estimated error for the scaled chamber predictions of ecosystem respiration by using the uncertainty associated with each respiration parameter and respiring biomass value. There was substantial uncertainty in estimates of foliar and soil respiration because of the spatial variability of specific respiration rates. In addition, more attention needs to be paid to estimating foliar respiration during the early part of the growing season, when new foliage is growing, and to determining seasonal trends of soil surface respiration. Nocturnal eddy covariance measurements were poorly correlated to scaled chamber estimates of ecosystem respiration ( r 2 =0.06–0.27) and were consistently lower than scaled chamber predictions (by 27% on average for the six sites). The bias in eddy covariance estimates of ecosystem respiration will alter estimates of gross assimilation in the light and of net ecosystem exchange rates over extended periods.

Journal of Geophysical Research D: Atmospheres↗

A comparison of six methods for measuring soil-surface carbon dioxide fluxes

Measurements of soil-surface CO 2 fluxes are important for characterizing the carbon budget of boreal forests because these fluxes can be the second largest component of the budget. Several methods for measuring soil-surface CO 2 fluxes are available: (1) closed-dynamic-chamber systems, (2) closed-static-chamber systems, (3) open-chamber systems, and (4) eddy covariance systems. This paper presents a field comparison of six individual systems for measuring soil-surface CO 2 fluxes with each of the four basic system types represented. A single system is used as a reference and compared to each of the other systems individually in black spruce (Picea mariana), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), or aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests. Fluxes vary from 1 to 10 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 . Adjustment factors to bring all of the systems into agreement vary from 0.93 to 1.45 with an uncertainty of about 10–15%.

Journal of Geophysical Research D: Atmospheres↗