Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping carbon flux uncertainty and selecting optimal locations for future flux towers in the Great Plains

  • Report
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Flux tower networks (e.g., AmeriFlux, Agriflux) provide continuous observations of ecosystem exchanges of carbon (e.g., net ecosystem exchange), water vapor (e.g., evapotranspiration), and energy between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. The long-term time series of flux tower data are essential for studying and understanding terrestrial carbon cycles, ecosystem services, and climate changes. Currently, there are 13 flux towers located within the Great Plains (GP). The towers are sparsely distributed and do not adequately represent the varieties of vegetation cover types, climate conditions, and geophysical and biophysical conditions in the GP. This study assessed how well the available flux towers represent the environmental conditions or “ecological envelopes” across the GP and identified optimal locations for future flux towers in the GP. Regression-based remote sensing and weather-driven net ecosystem production (NEP) models derived from different extrapolation ranges (10 and 50%) were used to identify areas where ecological conditions were poorly represented by the flux tower sites and years previously used for mapping grassland fluxes. The optimal lands suitable for future flux towers within the GP were mapped. Results from this study provide information to optimize the usefulness of future flux towers in the GP and serve as a proxy for the uncertainty of the NEP map.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Baldocchi D, Falge E, Gu L, Olson R, Hollinger D, Running S, Anthoni P, Bernhofer C, Davis K, Evans R, Fuentes J, Goldstein A, Katul G, Law B, Lee X, Malhi Y, Meyers T, Munger W, Oechel W, Paw KT, Pilegaard K, Schmid HP, Valentini R, Verma S, Vesala T, Wilson K, Wofsyn S (2001) FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82(11):2415–2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmanov TG, Verma SB, Sims PL, Meyers TP, Burba GG, Suyker AE (2003) Gross primary production and light response parameters of four Southern Plains ecosystems estimated using long-term CO2-flux tower measurements. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 17(2):40–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmanov TG, Tieszen LL, Wylie BK, Flanagan LB, Frank AB, Haferkamp MR, Meyers TP, Morgan JA (2005) Integration of CO2 flux and remotely sensed data for primary production and ecosystem respiration analyses in the Northern Great Plains: potential for quantitative spatial extrapolation. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:271–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove WW, Hoffman FM, Law BE (2003) New analysis reveals representativeness of the Ameriflux network. Eos 84(48):529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 National Land-Cover Database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70(7):829–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkerson CB, Maiersperger TK, Schmidt GL (2010) eMODIS—a user-friendly data source. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Report, 2010–1055

  • Joyce LA, Ojima D, Seielstad DA, Harriss R, Lackett J (2001) Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the Great Plains. In: National Assessment Synthesis Team (ed) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 191–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung M, Reichstein M, Bondeau A (2009) Towards global empirical upscaling of FLUXNET eddy covariance observations: validation of a model tree ensemble approach using a biosphere model. Biogeosciences 6(10):2001–2013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Law BE (2006) Carbon dynamics in response to climate and disturbance: recent progress from multiscale measurements and modeling in AmeriFlux. In: Omasa K, Nouchi I, De Kok LJ (eds) Plant responses to air pollution and global change. Springer, Tokyo, pp 205–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Law BE (2007) AmeriFlux network aids global synthesis. Eos Trans AGU 88(28):286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77(1):118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed BC, Brown JF, Vanderzee D (1994) Measuring phenological variability from satellite imagery. J Veg Sci 5:703–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichstein M, Ciais P, Papale D, Valentini R, Running S, Viovy N, Cramer W, Granier A, Ogée J, Allard V, Aubinet M, Bernhofer Chr, Buchmann N, Carrara A, Grünwald T, Heimann M, Heinesch B, Knohl A, Kutsch W, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Miglietta F, Ourcival JM, Pilegaard K, Pumpanen J, Rambal S, Schaphoff S, Seufert G, Soussana J-F, Sanz M-J, Vesala T, Zhao M (2007) Reduction of ecosystem productivity and respiration during the European summer 2003 climate anomaly: a joint flux tower, remote sensing and modelling analysis. Glob Ch Biol 13(3):634–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Running SW, Baldocchi DD, Turner DP, Gower ST, Bakwin PS, Hibbard KA (1999) A global terrestrial monitoring network integrating tower fluxes, flask sampling, ecosystem modeling and EOS satellite data. Remote Sen Environ 70(1):108–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims DA, Rahman AF, Cordova VD et al (2005) Midday values of gross CO2 flux and light use efficiency during satellite overpasses can be used to directly estimate eight-day mean flux. Agric For Meteorol 131(1–2):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tieszen LL, Reed BC, Bliss NB, Wylie BK, DeJong DD (1997) NDVI, C3 AND C4 production, and distributions in Great Plains grassland land cover classes. Ecol Appl 7(1):59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie BK, Fosnight EA, Gilmanov TG, Frank AB, Morgan JA, Haferkamp MR, Meyers TP (2007) Adaptive data-driven models for estimating carbon fluxes in the Northern Great Plains. Remote Sens Environ 106(4):399–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao JF, Zhuang QL, Baldocchi DD, Law BE, Richardson AD, Chen JQ, Oren R, Starr G, Noormets A, Ma SY, Verma SB, Wharton S, Wofsy SC, Bolstad PV, Burns SP, Cook DR, Curtis PS, Drake BG, Falk M, Fischer ML, Foster DR, Gu LH, Hadley JL, Hollinger DY, Katul GG, Litvak M, Martin TA, Matamala R, McNulty S, Meyers TP, Monson RK, Munger JW, Oechel WC, Schmid HP, Scott RL, Sun G, Suyker AE, Torn MS (2008) Estimation of net ecosystem carbon exchange for the conterminous United States by combining MODIS and AmeriFlux data. Agric For Meteorol 148(11):1827–1847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao JF, Zhuang QL, Law BE, Chen JQ, Baldocchi DD, Cook DR, Oren R, Richardson AD, Wharton S, Ma SY, Martin TA, Verma SB, Suyker AE, Scott RL, Monson RK, Litvak M, Hollinger DY, Sun G, Davis KJ, Bolstad PV, Burns SP, Curtis PS, Drake BG, Falk M, Fischer ML, Foster DR, Gu LH, Hadley JL, Katul GG, Roser Y, McNulty S, Meyers TP, Munger JW, Noormets A, Oechel WC, Paw KT, Schmid HP, Starr G, Torn MS, Wofsy SC (2010) A continuous measure of gross primary production for the conterminous United States derived from MODIS and AmeriFlux data. Remote Sens Environ 114(3):576–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang F, Ichii K, White MA, Hashimoto H, Michaelis AR, Votava P, Zhu AX, Huete A, Running S, Nemani RR (2007) Developing a continental-scale measure of gross primary production by combining MODIS and AmeriFlux data through support vector machine approach. Remote Sens Environ 110(1):109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Wylie BK, Ji L, Gilmanov TG, Tieszen LL, Howard DM (2011) Upscaling carbon fluxes over the Great Plains grasslands: Sinks and sources. Journal of Geophysical Research G: Biogeosciences 116(1)

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was performed under USGS contracts G08PC91508 and G10PC00044, and funded by the USGS Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program in support of Renewable Energy-Biofuels initiative. The authors thank Norman B. Bliss, Kurtis Nelson, Lei Ji, and Thomas Adamson for their valuable suggestions and comments. The authors thank Tagir G. Gilmanov for gap filling of flux tower NEP data. The authors thank D. Billesbach, C. Owensby, and J. Heilman (the PIs of the Gudmundsen, Rannels Flint Hills, Fort Reno, and Freeman Ranch sites) for providing their unpublished flux tower data. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ASRC Research & Technology Solutions, Contractor to US Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD, 57198, USA

    Yingxin Gu

  2. Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc., Contractor to USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD, 57198, USA

    Daniel M. Howard

  3. USGS EROS, Sioux Falls, SD, 57198, USA

    Bruce K. Wylie

  4. Key Laboratory of Digital Earth, Center for Earth Observation and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Li Zhang

Authors
  1. Yingxin Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel M. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce K. Wylie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Li Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingxin Gu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gu, Y., Howard, D.M., Wylie, B.K. et al. Mapping carbon flux uncertainty and selecting optimal locations for future flux towers in the Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 27, 319–326 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9699-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9699-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation