Transcript of Uncovering mechanisms of episodic methane sources observed by a very tall eddy covariance tower...
- Slide 1
- Uncovering mechanisms of episodic methane sources observed by a
very tall eddy covariance tower Ankur Desai, UW-Madison Atmospheric
& Oceanic Sciences Weiguo Wang, NOAA EMC Bruce D Cook, NASA
GSFC AMS 30 th AgForMet / 1 st Biogeosciences Conference Wed. May
30, 2012, Boston, MA Abstract #J6.3
- Slide 2
- A. Desai J6.3 2/22 Why do we even have tall towers? Atmospheric
and ecological research suffers from the perfect site bias High
signal to noise ratio E.g., convection in southern great plains
Pretty site bias (infrastructure, homogeneity) E.g., Even-aged
homogenous flux towers Regional-scale flux measurements can address
some of this bias
- Slide 3
- A. Desai J6.3 3/22 A very tall tower!
- Slide 4
- A. Desai J6.3 4/22 Pretty sites!
- Slide 5
- A. Desai J6.3 5/22 The reality
- Slide 6
- A. Desai J6.3 6/22 Long-term variability of CO 2 NEE
- Slide 7
- A. Desai J6.3 7/22 Methane is a real bugger In late 2010, we
added fast response methane measurements to the long running
Ameriflux US-PFa (WLEF) tower
- Slide 8
- A. Desai J6.3 8/22 And it surprised us!
- Slide 9
- A. Desai J6.3 9/22 Different sources in winter and summer?
Methane flux magnitudes do not change in magnitude from winter to
growing season, but do change in quality.
- Slide 10
- A. Desai J6.3 10/22 Environmental controls not evident CH 4
emissions regionally are only weakly correlated to temperature,
unlike at plot scale. Winter CH 4 fluxes strongly correlated to
small magnitude CO 2 fluxes.
- Slide 11
- A. Desai J6.3 11/22 Questions Are there ecosystem-scale
environmental controls on these relatively large bursts of methane
inside and outside of the growing season? Which landscapes in the
tower footprint are responsible for large CH 4 sources? Is there a
shift in key regions for methane emission and consumption by
season?
- Slide 12
- A. Desai J6.3 12/22 Where are the methane sources? 30 meter
land cover derived from hand analysis and ground truthing of
Quickbird imagery
- Slide 13
- A. Desai J6.3 13/22 Seeing more with less Reclassification of
34 land covers reveals importance of small- scale wetlands and
forest type across footprint
- Slide 14
- A. Desai J6.3 14/22 PBL footprint models required Surface-layer
flux footprint models are not valid for tall towers Applied Wang et
al. (2006) J. Atm. Ocean. Tech. CBL cross- wind integrated flux
footprint model to one year at 122m measurement height at WLEF
- Slide 15
- A. Desai J6.3 15/22 I see the forest and the swamp! Typical
hourly flux footprint samples a wide range of wetland and forest
types Variation with stability and wind direction allow us to
evaluate sources
- Slide 16
- A. Desai J6.3 16/22 Footprint sample bias is small
Surprisingly, long-term footprint biases are small, so we are
confident that tower samples regional flux over long-time
periods
- Slide 17
- A. Desai J6.3 17/22 No smoking gassy gun? Mean land cover by
wind-direction segregated footprint hints but does not fully
support strong CH4 sources from wetlands NW of tower
- Slide 18
- A. Desai J6.3 18/22 Maybe pure footprints help? However, high
methane emissions occur both in footprints with mostly upland
influence (top) AND mostly wetland influence (bottom)
- Slide 19
- A. Desai J6.3 19/22 Forests may have CH 4 sources Temperature
response segregated by dominant footprint land cover reveals high
CH 4 emission by deciduous forest dominant footprints!
- Slide 20
- A. Desai J6.3 20/22 Coevolution of CO 2 and CH 4 sources?
Alternative look some consistencies in difference in land cover
influence by periods with high CO2 and/or high CH4
- Slide 21
- A. Desai J6.3 21/22 Conclusions Regional fluxes arise from a a
variety of non-pretty landscapes with low signal-to-noise Requires
a more robust sample design for scaling from stand to region
Episodic methane sources influence regional methane flux budgets
and have a different pace and mechanism then CO 2, especially in
growing season Flux footprint models and land cover maps hint at a
wetland influence for CH 4 emissions, but not clearly Uncertainty
in all three (flux, footprint, land cover) can be large and require
evaluation Upland sources of methane cannot be ruled out Simple
temperature response functions from the plot-scale do not
necessarily pan out at the region -> implications for ecosystem
model parameterization Current plans include development of soil
survey chamber for CH 4 flux seeking advice!
- Slide 22
- A. Desai J6.3 22/22 Acknowledgments $$: NSF CAREER DEB #0845166
WLEF/ Park Falls (US-PFa) tall tower research partners: NOAA ESRL
(A. Andrews, J. Kofler), USFS NRS (M. Kubiske, D. Baumann), Penn
State (K. Davis), WI ECB (J. Ayers), Ameriflux, Picarro, Inc., Los
Gatos Research, Inc., P Weishampel (Northland College) Desai lab at
UW Field site manager: Jonathan Thom http://flux.aos.wisc.edu
desai@aos.wisc.edu 608-218-4208