GPP/RE discussion

22
GPP/RE discussion • Who am I: – Ankur Desai – National Center for Atmospheric Research • What we’re doing • Initial results • What we have • What should we do • Plan of action

description

GPP/RE discussion. Who am I: Ankur Desai National Center for Atmospheric Research What we’re doing Initial results What we have What should we do Plan of action. What we’re doing. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of GPP/RE discussion

Page 1: GPP/RE discussion

GPP/RE discussion

• Who am I:– Ankur Desai– National Center for Atmospheric Research

• What we’re doing

• Initial results

• What we have

• What should we do

• Plan of action

Page 2: GPP/RE discussion

What we’re doing

• Using same dataset from NEE gap filling (12 site-years, 51 scenarios/site) to comparing GPP/RE across methods

• 10 of 15 methods produce GPP/RE– Neural networks and tables do not?– 9 of these analyzed so far– With variants, currently at 19 analyzed

• Unlike NEE, no benchmark– However, BETHY model is part of group– Can use BETHY as benchmark– Because I’m lazy

Page 3: GPP/RE discussion

What we’re doing

• Hypotheses:– Intramethod variability in GPP/RE <

Intermethod variability for any site• i.e., insensitive to most gaps

– Site GPP/RE estimates vary < 20% across methods

– Using BETHY as model benchmark, mean of other methods is similar to BETHY GPP/RE

• More sophisticated methods have less difference to BETHY GPP/RE than simpler methods

– Variability in GPP/RE < GPP or RE– Others?

Page 4: GPP/RE discussion

What we’re doing

Name Abbrev. Author Type Color

BETHY_365D B365 Kattge process model blueBETHY_12D B12 Kattge process model blue

NLR_A NA Noormets regression (AQRTa) magentaNLR_EM NE Desai regression (Eyring) orange

NLR_FM_AD NFA Richardson regression (abs dev) brownNLR_FM_OLS NFO Richardson regression (least sq) brown

NLR_LM_INT_DC NLID Falge regression (int) redNLR_LM_INT_LU NLIL Falge regression (int) redNLR_LM_INT_RE NLIR Falge regression (int) redNLR_LM_TA_DC NLTD Falge regression (air temp) redNLR_LM_TA_LU NLTL Falge regression (air temp) redNLR_LM_TA_RE NLTR Falge regression (air temp) redNLR_LM_TS_DC NLSD Falge regression (soil temp) redNLR_LM_TS_LU NLSL Falge regression (soil temp) redNLR_LM_TS_RE NLSR Falge regression (soil temp) red

NLR_FCRN_1 NC1 Barr regression red brownNLR_FCRN_2 NC2 Barr regression (with intercept) red brown

SPM SPM Stauch semi-parametric greenUKF UKF Hollinger Kalman filter green

MDS MDS Reichstein Marginal samplingMIM MIM Hui Multiple imputation  

Page 5: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results

• To date, all datasets have been processed and put in common binary format

• Daily and annual sums of GPP,RE computed

• Mean and variance across 51 replicates computed and across methods computed

• Diagnostic plots made– Box plots look at GPP/RE across methods

(letters) , replicates (gray bars), mean and st.dev (+) across methods and range (box)

– Colors delineate method type

Page 6: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results

• Other plots– GPP/RE plots– Cumulative 2-week smoothed GPP (negative

values) and RE (positive values) to look at when methods diverge for a site

• Line is method mean, shadow is variance across replicates

– Similar plots made for growing season (mid-May to mid-Sept) and dormant season (all other months)

– Benchmark plots look at similar data as percent different from BETHY full run

Page 7: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (annual)

Page 8: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (annual)

Page 9: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (annual)

Page 10: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (cumulative)

Page 11: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (cumulative)

Page 12: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (cumulative)

Page 13: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (cumulative)

Page 14: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (summer)

Page 15: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (summer)

Page 16: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (dormant season)

Page 17: GPP/RE discussion

Initial results (dormant season)

Page 18: GPP/RE discussion

What do we have

• A lot of messy plots!– Data reduction is hard (5 GB of data!)– Tables might work better?

• Have not done hypothesis testing yet– Generally looks like intermethod var. is higher

than 20% in some cases and biases in some methods compared to BETHY

– Intramethod var. << intermethod var.– Will we be able to tease mechanistic reasons

for method differences from this analysis?– Can we make any recommendations?

Page 19: GPP/RE discussion

GPP table  be1_2000 be1_2001 de3_2000 de3_2001 fi1_2001 fi1_2002 fr1_2001 fr1_2002 fr4_2002 il1_2002 it3_2001 it3_2002

BETHY_365D 1398 ± 0 1359 ± 0 1588 ± 0 1476 ± 0 984 ± 0 982 ± 0 1921 ± 0 2003 ± 0 1380 ± 0 1212 ± 0 1464 ± 0

BETHY_12D 1377 ± 0 1446 ± 0 1535 ± 0 1520 ± 0 1099 ± 0 1021 ± 0 1892 ± 0 2018 ± 0 1414 ± 0 1245 ± 0 1391 ± 0

NLR_A 1527 ± 7 1704 ± 9 1730 ± 12 1592 ± 11 1039 ± 7 1133 ± 7 1986 ± 15 2033 ± 15 1577 ± 9 783 ± 73 1199 ± 8 1485 ± 15

NLR_EM 1365 ± 9 1458 ± 9 1542 ± 8 1467 ± 7 915 ± 4 972 ± 6 1729 ± 12 1791 ± 10 1416 ± 9 618 ± 7 965 ± 10 1221 ± 11

NLR_FM_AD 1385 ± 10 1485 ± 10 1539 ± 13 1460 ± 13 955 ± 6 1023 ± 7 1768 ± 16 1806 ± 15 1344 ± 10 607 ± 10 1011 ± 10 1321 ± 16

NLR_FM_OLS 1424 ± 9 1525 ± 11 1588 ± 11 1491 ± 12 973 ± 5 1048 ± 6 1829 ± 15 1873 ± 13 1376 ± 10 626 ± 10 1057 ± 11 1378 ± 14

NLR_LM_INT_DC 1471 ± 23 1547 ± 29 1578 ± 23 1560 ± 16 936 ± 11 1000 ± 12 2028 ± 40 1993 ± 22 1297 ± 21 774 ± 59 1065 ± 11 1405 ± 18

NLR_LM_INT_LU 1468 ± 26 1575 ± 23 1483 ± 18 1514 ± 20 926 ± 19 1020 ± 21 1981 ± 33 2017 ± 26 1342 ± 24 812 ± 51 1126 ± 24 1444 ± 27

NLR_LM_INT_RE 1553 ± 28 1637 ± 25 1549 ± 19 1544 ± 22 952 ± 20 1049 ± 24 2048 ± 33 2108 ± 29 1382 ± 27 1761 ± 5 1141 ± 22 1484 ± 25

NLR_LM_TA_DC 1533 ± 9 1602 ± 16 1548 ± 9 1451 ± 9 1013 ± 9 1072 ± 8 1942 ± 18 1983 ± 15 1457 ± 8 492 ± 18 1068 ± 8 1347 ± 13

NLR_LM_TA_LU 1502 ± 21 1617 ± 21 1525 ± 17 1482 ± 18 983 ± 16 1037 ± 16 1935 ± 20 1991 ± 20 1467 ± 23 535 ± 21 1052 ± 19 1342 ± 23

NLR_LM_TA_RE 1508 ± 20 1619 ± 22 1522 ± 18 1491 ± 19 997 ± 16 1051 ± 18 1944 ± 21 1991 ± 18 1478 ± 24 584 ± 21 1037 ± 18 1364 ± 24

NLR_LM_TS_DC 1438 ± 8 1507 ± 14 1546 ± 10 1444 ± 9 952 ± 8 1011 ± 7 1835 ± 16 1880 ± 13 1457 ± 8 492 ± 18 1022 ± 8 1274 ± 12

NLR_LM_TS_LU 1413 ± 20 1529 ± 20 1522 ± 16 1476 ± 18 930 ± 18 984 ± 17 1825 ± 19 1884 ± 19 1467 ± 23 535 ± 21 1017 ± 18 1268 ± 22

NLR_LM_TS_RE 1415 ± 20 1530 ± 21 1518 ± 18 1484 ± 18 941 ± 18 993 ± 20 1831 ± 19 1883 ± 18 1478 ± 24 584 ± 21 1084 ± 210 1282 ± 22

SPM 1442 ± 10 1513 ± 10 1583 ± 9 1509 ± 17 959 ± 5 1022 ± 6 1818 ± 18 1891 ± 11 1419 ± 10 631 ± 7 918 ± 9 1327 ± 10

UKF 1560 ± 10 1649 ± 12 1767 ± 25 1666 ± 18 1076 ± 13 1168 ± 17 2101 ± 25 2143 ± 24 1700 ± 14 888 ± 13 1274 ± 38 1668 ± 23

NLR_FCRN_1 1417 ± 9 1512 ± 12 1580 ± 9 1502 ± 10 964 ± 5 1017 ± 8 1822 ± 18 1860 ± 15 1424 ± 7 573 ± 13 1038 ± 9 1314 ± 9

NLR_FCRN_2 1441 ± 9 1523 ± 12 1613 ± 10 1526 ± 8 972 ± 5 1023 ± 9 1852 ± 14 1886 ± 14 1422 ± 7 608 ± 7 1040 ± 8 1355 ± 11

 

mean 1462 ± 15 1561 ± 16 1572 ± 14 1509 ± 14 970 ± 11 1037 ± 12 1898 ± 21 1942 ± 17 1441 ± 15 700 ± 22 1066 ± 26 1369 ± 17

var 60 ± 7 67 ± 7 73 ± 5 57 ± 5 42 ± 6 51 ± 6 105 ± 8 99 ± 5 92 ± 8 289 ± 20 97 ± 48 105 ± 6

max 1593 1722 1885 1717 1127 1195 2170 2217 1748 1771 1868 1726

min 1285 1394 1409 1402 803 863 1694 1754 1197 405 893 1135

Page 20: GPP/RE discussion

RE table be1_2000 be1_2001 de3_2000 de3_2001 fi1_2001 fi1_2002 fr1_2001 fr1_2002 fr4_2002 il1_2002 it3_2001 it3_2002

BETHY_365D 1049 ± 0 872 ± 0 1051 ± 0 953 ± 0 842 ± 0 788 ± 0 1329 ± 0 1437 ± 0 1061 ± 0 926 ± 0 1475 ± 0

BETHY_12D 1003 ± 0 908 ± 0 1236 ± 0 1045 ± 0 834 ± 0 849 ± 0 1313 ± 0 1547 ± 0 1051 ± 0 967 ± 0 1357 ± 0

NLR_A 1182 ± 10 1167 ± 14 1217 ± 12 1110 ± 9 855 ± 9 918 ± 7 1414 ± 12 1459 ± 10 1255 ± 11 651 ± 126 905 ± 8 1460 ± 16

NLR_EM 989 ± 10 896 ± 11 981 ± 10 924 ± 5 720 ± 5 725 ± 7 1119 ± 9 1190 ± 10 1076 ± 11 385 ± 6 658 ± 7 1134 ± 14

NLR_FM_AD 1027 ± 13 934 ± 8 975 ± 7 953 ± 6 772 ± 5 794 ± 7 1179 ± 7 1224 ± 8 1023 ± 8 431 ± 13 717 ± 12 1278 ± 16

NLR_FM_OLS 1074 ± 12 984 ± 11 1038 ± 8 995 ± 7 796 ± 5 826 ± 5 1251 ± 9 1300 ± 9 1059 ± 9 446 ± 12 779 ± 12 1353 ± 14

NLR_LM_INT_DC 1127 ± 20 1042 ± 31 1048 ± 30 1051 ± 15 768 ± 14 785 ± 14 1438 ± 38 1414 ± 23 963 ± 23 578 ± 55 789 ± 12 1379 ± 17

NLR_LM_INT_LU 1133 ± 30 1047 ± 28 955 ± 25 974 ± 24 751 ± 30 795 ± 31 1403 ± 37 1452 ± 32 1008 ± 28 615 ± 50 853 ± 24 1422 ± 37

NLR_LM_INT_RE 1217 ± 33 1110 ± 29 1025 ± 26 1006 ± 27 776 ± 30 829 ± 35 1469 ± 35 1539 ± 33 1052 ± 31 1559 ± 5 870 ± 22 1476 ± 35

NLR_LM_TA_DC 1189 ± 12 1097 ± 16 1018 ± 11 942 ± 8 845 ± 10 856 ± 8 1352 ± 16 1404 ± 15 1123 ± 10 296 ± 11 792 ± 10 1321 ± 16

NLR_LM_TA_LU 1168 ± 26 1089 ± 27 997 ± 26 941 ± 23 808 ± 27 811 ± 25 1357 ± 28 1425 ± 26 1133 ± 26 336 ± 27 779 ± 21 1320 ± 34

NLR_LM_TA_RE 1173 ± 26 1092 ± 27 998 ± 28 953 ± 24 821 ± 27 831 ± 29 1365 ± 28 1422 ± 24 1149 ± 29 372 ± 25 766 ± 19 1356 ± 32

NLR_LM_TS_DC 1093 ± 10 1002 ± 14 1016 ± 11 935 ± 8 784 ± 9 796 ± 7 1245 ± 13 1301 ± 13 1123 ± 10 296 ± 11 746 ± 9 1248 ± 15

NLR_LM_TS_LU 1078 ± 24 1001 ± 26 994 ± 26 936 ± 23 755 ± 29 759 ± 27 1247 ± 27 1318 ± 25 1133 ± 26 336 ± 27 744 ± 20 1246 ± 32

NLR_LM_TS_RE 1079 ± 25 1003 ± 26 994 ± 27 946 ± 24 764 ± 29 773 ± 31 1252 ± 27 1314 ± 24 1149 ± 29 372 ± 25 814 ± 210 1273 ± 31

SPM 1098 ± 10 980 ± 12 1045 ± 7 982 ± 22 808 ± 12 822 ± 8 1256 ± 13 1325 ± 12 1077 ± 9 465 ± 7 569 ± 5 1306 ± 13

UKF 1210 ± 16 1116 ± 19 1310 ± 26 1152 ± 20 905 ± 11 970 ± 17 1568 ± 25 1590 ± 23 1430 ± 16 875 ± 24 1064 ± 28 1699 ± 22

NLR_FCRN_1 1072 ± 11 978 ± 13 1059 ± 8 992 ± 6 789 ± 7 795 ± 10 1245 ± 11 1315 ± 13 1081 ± 8 397 ± 13 756 ± 7 1284 ± 11

NLR_FCRN_2 1083 ± 13 988 ± 15 1073 ± 11 1002 ± 7 796 ± 17 794 ± 10 1263 ± 12 1316 ± 11 1111 ± 6 427 ± 4 758 ± 7 1331 ± 16

 

mean 1117 ± 18 1031 ± 19 1044 ± 18 988 ± 15 795 ± 16 816 ± 16 1319 ± 20 1371 ± 18 1114 ± 17 520 ± 26 786 ± 25 1346 ± 22

var 66 ± 8 73 ± 8 89 ± 9 64 ± 8 47 ± 10 59 ± 11 114 ± 11 104 ± 8 104 ± 9 300 ± 30 115 ± 48 122 ± 9

max 1260 1204 1362 1235 932 1015 1617 1670 1477 1567 1590 1762

min 921 835 803 783 548 563 1065 1150 833 158 558 1036

Page 21: GPP/RE discussion

What should we do

• Other hypotheses

• Other kinds of benchmarks/models

• Other kinds of comparisons– Artificial data?

• Technical approach– Different kinds of figures– Different analysis techniques / stats

• Philosophical questions

• Is this manuscript worthy?

Page 22: GPP/RE discussion

Plan of action• Get all data!

– mixed gap runs - late oct– no il1, it3_2001– Jens to give Dave BETHY data (all sites), Dave to corrupt, Antje to

gapify (10 mixed scenarios 35% missing + 0% missing) - next 3-4 mos– 10 Mixed gaps only + r0– Fill and decompose as you would when publishing GPP/RE for your

sites - final sets Spring 07

• Run other benchmarks, tests if needed– Running corrupt data through methods– Seasonal diurnal plots– ANOVA of GPP or RE for site x method– Find independent data (chamber, inventory, etc…)

• Share data• Discuss - Desai to create wiki• Write a manuscript - Dec.• Delegate tasks