Sensitivity Exploration of SimSphere Land Surface Model Towards Its Use for Operational Products Development from Earth Observation Data

  • George P. Petropoulos
  • Hywel M. Griffiths
  • Pavlos Ioannou-Katidis
  • Prashant K. Srivastava
Chapter
Part of the Society of Earth Scientists Series book series (SESS)

Abstract

The use of Earth Observation (EO) data combined with land surface process models is at present being explored to assist in better understanding the natural processes of the Earth as well as how the different components of the Earth system interplay. However, before applying any modelling approach in performing any kind of analysis or operation, a variety of validatory tests needs to be executed to evaluate the adequacy of the developed “model” in terms of its ability to reproduce the desired mechanisms with the necessary reality. Sensitivity analysis (SA) is an integral and important validatory check of a computer simulation model or modelling approach before it is used in performing any kind of analysis operation. The present study builds on previous works conducted by the authors in which a sophisticated, cutting edge SA method adopting Bayesian theory has been implemented on a land surface process model called SimSphere with the aim of further extending our understanding of its structure and of establishing its coherence. This land surface model has been widely used as an educational tool in different Universities across the world, as a stand-alone tool and synergistically with EO data in deriving key parameters characterising land surface processes. SimSphere use is currently under investigation by two Space Agencies for deriving spatio-temporal estimates of energy fluxes and soil surface moisture from a technique in which the model is used synergistically with Earth Observation data. The GSA method employed here provided a further insight into the model’s architectural structure, and allowed us to determine which model input parameters and parameter interactions exert a significant influence on the selected model outputs, and which are inconsequential. Analysis of the SA results indicated that only a small fraction of the model input parameters have an appreciable influence on the examined target quantities. Results, however, did suggest the presence of highly complex interactions structure within SimSphere, which drove a considerable fraction of the variance of the variables simulated by the model. The main findings are discussed in the context of the future model use including its synergy with EO data for deriving the operational development of key land surface parameters from space.

Keywords

Earth observation Soil vegetation atmosphere transfer models SimSphere Energy fluxes Sensitivity analysis BACCO GEM-SA Gaussian process emulators 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this work was conducted under the Marie Curie Career Re-Integration Project TRANSFORM-EO project. Dr. Petropoulos gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided.

References

  1. Battrick B (2006) The changing Earth. New scientific challenges for ESA’s living planet programme. ESA SP-1304. ESA Publications Division, ESTEC, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. Bewley D, Essery R, Pomeroy J, Ménard C (2010) Measurements and modelling of snowmelt and turbulent heat fluxes over shrub tundra. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14(7):1331–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson TN (2007) An overview of the “triangle method” for estimating surface evapotranspiration and soil moisture from satellite imagery. Sensors 7:1612–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson TN, Boland FE (1978) Analysis of urban-rural canopy using a surface heat flux/temperature model. J Appl Meteorol 17:998–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chauhan NS, Miller S, Ardanuy P (2003) Spaceborne soil moisture estimation at high resolution: a microwave-optical/IR synergistic approach. Int J Remote Sens 22:4599–4646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen L, Tian Y, Cao C, Zhang S, Zhang S (2012) Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of an extended ASM3-SMP model describing membrane bioreactor operation. J Membr Sci 389:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ Model Softw 25:1582–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dirmeyer PA (2011) The terrestrial segment of soil moisture–climate coupling. Geophys Res Lett 38(16):L16702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durre I, Wallace JM, Lettenmaier DP (2000) Dependence of extreme daily maximum temperatures on antecedent soil moisture in the contiguous United States during summer. J Clim 13:2641–2651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis CR, Pomeroy JW (2007) Estimating sub-canopy shortwave irradiance to melting snow on forested slopes. Hydrol Process 21(19):2581–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis CR, Pomeroy JW, Essery RLH, Link TE (2011) Effects of needleleaf forest cover on radiation and snowmelt dynamics in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Can J For Res 41:608–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feyissa AH, Gernaey KV, Adler-Nissen J (2012) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: mathematical model of coupled heat and mass transfer for a contact baking process. J Food Eng 109:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gatelli D, Kucherenko S, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2009) Calculating first-order sensitivity measures: a benchmark of some recent methodologies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:1212–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillies RR, Carlson TN, Cui J, Kustas WP, Humes KS (1997) Verification of the triangle method for obtaining surface soil moisture content and energy fluxes from remote measurements of the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) and surface radiant temperatures. Int J Remote Sens 18:3145-3166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holvoet K, van Griensven A, Seuntjents P, Vanrolleghem PA (2005) Sensitivity analysis for hydrology and pesticide supply towards the river in SWAT. Phys Chem Earth 30:518–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson JS, Gosling JP, Kennedy MC (2011) Gaussian process emulation for second-order Monte Carlo simulations. J Stat Plann Infer 141:1838–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juszak I, Pellicciotti F (2013) A comparison of parameterisations of incoming longwave radiation over melting glaciers: model robustness and seasonal variability. J Geophys Res Atmos 118:3066–3084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50277
  18. Kennedy MC, Butler Ellis MC, Miller PCH (2012) BREAM: a probabilistic Bystander and Resident Exposure Assessment Model of spray drift from an agricultural boom sprayer. Comput Electron Agric 88:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A (2000) Predicting the output from a complex computer code when fast approximations are available. Biometrika 87:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A (2001) Bayesian calibration of computer models. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser. B (Stat Methodol) 63(3):425–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lockart N, Kavetski D, Franks SW (2012) On the role of soil moisture in daytime evolution of temperatures. Hydrol Process doi: 10.1002/hyp.9525
  22. Moradkhani H (2008) Hydrologic remote sensing and land surface data assimilation. Sensors 8(5):2986–3004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moran MS, Peters-Lidard CD, Watts JM, McElroy S (2004) Estimating soil moisture at the watershed scale with satellite-based radar and land surface models. Can J Remote Sens 30(5):805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nossent J, Elsen P, Bauwens W (2011) Sobol’s sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model. Environ Model Softw 26:1515–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Hagan A (2006) Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: a tutorial. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:1290–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ogée, Lamaud J, Brunet E, Berbigier Y, Bonnefond P (2001) A long-term study of soil heat flux under a forest canopy. Agric For Meteorol 106(3):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olioso A (1992) Simulation des 6changes d’6nergie et de masse d’un convert v6gandal, dans le but de relier ia transpiration et la photosynthese anx mesures de reflectance et de temp6rature de surface. Thesis, University de Montpellier IIGoogle Scholar
  28. Olioso A, Chauki H, Courault D, Wigneron J-P (1999) Estimation of evapotranspiration and photosynthesis by assimilation of remote sensing data into SVAT models. Remote Sens Environ 68:341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oliphant AJ, Spronken-Smith RA, Sturman AP, Owens IF (2003) Spatial variability of surface radiation fluxes in mountainous terrain. J Appl Meteor 42:113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parry HR, Topping CJ, Kennedy MC, Boatman ND, Murray AWA (2012) Bayesian sensitivity analysis applied to an agent-based model of bird population response to landscape change. Environ Model Softw 45(6):1–12Google Scholar
  31. Petropoulos G, Carlson, TN (2011) Retrievals of turbulent heat fluxes and soil moisture content by Remote Sensing. In: Weng Q. (ed) Advances in environmental remote sensing: sensors, algorithms, and applications, Taylor and Francis, pp 667–502 ISBN: 978-1-4200-9175-5Google Scholar
  32. Petropoulos GP (2013) Remote sensing of energy fluxes and soil moisture content, Taylor and Francis, 506 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4665-0578-0Google Scholar
  33. Petropoulos GP, Carlson TN (2013) Deriving surface soil moisture from medium resolution VNIR/TIR Earth observation data and a 1D process model. European Geosciences Union, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  34. Petropoulos G, Carlson TN, Wooster MJ, Islam S (2009a) A review of Ts/VI remote sensing based methods for the retrieval of land surface fluxes and soil surface moisture content. Adv Phys Geogr 33(2):1–27Google Scholar
  35. Petropoulos G, Carlson TN, Wooster MJ (2009b) An overview of the use of the SimSphere soil vegetation atmosphere transfer (SVAT) model for the study of land-atmosphere interactions. Sensors 9(6):4286–4308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petropoulos G, Wooster MJ, Kennedy M, Carlson TN, Scholze M (2009c) A global sensitivity analysis study of the 1D SimSphere SVAT model using the GEM SA software. Ecol Model 220(19):2427–2440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petropoulos G, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2010) A comparative analysis of emulators for the sensitivity analysis of a land surface process model. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci 2(6):7716–7717 (6th international conference on sensitivity analysis of model output, 19–22 July 2010, Milan, Italy). doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.194
  38. Petropoulos GP, Griffiths HM, Tarantola S (2013) Towards operational products development from Earth observation: exploration of SimSphere land surface process model sensitivity using a GSA approach. In: 7th International conference on sensitivity analysis of model output, Nice, France, 1–4 July 2013 (accepted)Google Scholar
  39. Piles M, Camps A, Vall-llossera M, Corbella I, Panciera R, Rudiger C, Kerr YH, Walker J (2011) Downscaling SMOS-derived soil moisture using MODIS visible/infrared data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 49(9):3156–3166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pomeroy JW, Marks D, Link T, Ellis C, Hardy J, Rowlands A, Granger R (2009) The impact of coniferous forest temperature on incoming longwave radiation to melting snow. Hydrol Process 23(17):2513–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ratto M, Tarantola S, Saltelli A (2011) Sensitivity analysis in model calibration: GSA-GLUE approach. Comput Phys Commun 136:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sabetraftar K, Mackey B, Croke B (2011) Sensitivity of modelled gross primary productivity to topographic effects on surface radiation: a case study in the Cotter River Catchment, Australia. Ecol Model 222(3):795–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sade R, Rimmer A, Iggy Litaor M, Shamir E, Furman A (2011) The sensitivity of snow-surface temperature equation to sloped terrain. J Hydrol 408(3):308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (2000) Sensitivity analysis. In: Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, Chichester, P 467Google Scholar
  45. Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Chan KP-S (1999) A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output. Technometrics 41(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santanello JA, Peters-Lidard CD, Kumar SV, Alonge C, Tao W-K (2009) A modeling and observational framework for diagnosing local land–atmosphere coupling on diurnal time scales. J Hydrometeorol 10:577–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwieger V (2004) Variance-based sensitivity analysis for model evaluation in engineering surveys. INGEO 2004 and FIG Regional central and Eastern European conference on engineering surveying, Bratislava, Slovakia, 11–13 Nov 2004. Available on line at: http://www.fig.net/pub/bratislava/papers/ts01/ts01schwieger.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2007
  48. Schwinger J, Kollet SJ, Hoppe CM, Elbern H (2010) Sensitivity of latent heat fluxes to initial values and parameters of a land-surface model. Vadose Zone J 9(4):984–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sicart JE, Pomeroy JW, Essery RLH, Bewley D (2006) Incoming longwave radiation to melting snow: observations, sensitivity and estimation in northern environments. Hydrol Process 20(17):3697–3708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sicart JE, Hock R, Ribstein P, Chazarin JP (2010) Sky longwave radiation on tropical Andean glaciers: parameterization and sensitivity to atmospheric variables. J Glaciol 56(199):854–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sobol' IM (1976) Uniformly distributed sequences with additional uniformity properties. Zh Vychisl Mat Mat Fiz 16(5):1332–1337Google Scholar
  52. Song X, Bryan BA, Paul KI, Zhao G (2012) Variance-based sensitivity analysis of a forest growth model. Ecol Model 246:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tanguy M, Baille A, González-Real MM, Lloyd C, Cappelaere B, Kergoat L, Cohard JM (2012) A new parameterisation scheme of ground heat flux for land surface flux retrieval from remote sensing information. J Hydrol 454:113–122Google Scholar
  54. van der Tol C (2012) Validation of remote sensing of bare soil ground heat flux. Remote Sens Environ 121:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Villegas JC, Breshears DD, Zou CB, Law DJ (2010) Ecohydrological controls of soil evaporation in deciduous drylands: how the hierarchical effects of litter, patch and vegetation mosaic cover interact with phenology and season. J Arid Environ 74(5):595–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang ZH, Bou-Zeid E (2012) A novel approach for the estimation of soil ground heat flux. Agric For Meteorol 154:214–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • George P. Petropoulos
    • 1
  • Hywel M. Griffiths
    • 1
  • Pavlos Ioannou-Katidis
    • 1
  • Prashant K. Srivastava
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Earth SciencesUniversity of AberystwythAberystwythUK
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations