Data assimilation in terrestrial biosphere models:
Download
1 / 29

Michael Raupach, Cathy Trudinger, Peter Briggs, Luigi Renzullo, Damian Barrett, Peter Rayner - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on

Data assimilation in terrestrial biosphere models: exploiting mutual constraints among the carbon, water and energy cycles. Michael Raupach, Cathy Trudinger, Peter Briggs, Luigi Renzullo, Damian Barrett, Peter Rayner

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Michael Raupach, Cathy Trudinger, Peter Briggs, Luigi Renzullo, Damian Barrett, Peter Rayner' - zihna


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Data assimilation in terrestrial biosphere models: exploiting mutual constraints among the carbon, water and energy cycles

Michael Raupach, Cathy Trudinger, Peter Briggs, Luigi Renzullo, Damian Barrett, Peter Rayner

Thanks: colleagues in the Australian Water Availability Project (CSIRO, BRS, BoM); participants in OptIC project

CarbonFusion (Edinburgh, 9-11 May 2006)


Outline
Outline

  • Data assimilation challenges for carbon and water

  • Multiple-constraint data assimilation

  • Using water fluxes (especially streamflow) to constrain carbon fluxes

  • Observation models for streamflow (with more general thoughts on scale)

  • Example: Murrumbidgee basin

  • Model-data fusion: comparison of two methods


Carbon da
Carbon DA

  • Challenges for carbon cycle science (including data assimilation)

    • Science: finding state, evolution, vulnerabilities in C cycle and CCH system

    • Policy: supporting role: IPCC-SBSTA-UNFCCC, national policy

    • Management: trend detection, source attribution ("natural", anthropogenic)

  • Terrestrial carbon balance

  • Required characteristics of an observation system

    • pools (Ci(t)), fluxes (GPP, NPP, NBP, respiration, disturbance)

    • Long time scales (to detect trends)

    • Fine space scales (to resolve management and attribute sources)

    • Good process resolution (to detect vulnerabilities, eg respiration, nutrients)

    • Demonstrated consistency from plot to globe


Water da
Water DA

  • Challenges for hydrology (including water data assimilation)

    • Science: state, evolution, vulnerabilities in water as a limiting resource

    • Policy: supporting role at national and regional level

    • Management: providing tools (forecasting, allocation, trading)

  • Terrestrial water balance (without snow)

  • Required characteristics of an observation system

    • W(t) and fluxes for soil water balance (also rivers, groundwater, reservoirs)

    • Accurately enough to support regulation, trading, warning (flood, drought)

    • With forecast ability from days to seasons


Coupled terrestrial cycles of energy water carbon and nutrients
Coupled terrestrial cycles of energy, water, carbon and nutrients

Water flow

C flow

N flow

P flow

Energy

ATMOSPHERE

Photosynthesis

Soil evap

Rain

WaterCycle

N fixation,N deposition,N volatilisation

C Cycle

Transpiration

PLANTLeaves, Wood, Roots

Disturbance

Respiration

Fertiliser inputs

N,P Cycles

ORGANIC MATTER

Litter: Leafy, Woody

Soil: Active (microbial)

Slow (humic)

Passive (inert)

SOIL

Soil water

Mineral N, P

Fluvial, aeolian transport

Runoff

Leaching


Confluences of carbon water energy nutrient cycles
Confluences of carbon, water, energy, nutrient cycles nutrients

  • Carbon and water:

    • (Photosynthesis, transpiration) involve diffusion of (CO2, H2O) through stomata

    • => (leaf scale): (CO2 flux) / (water flux) = (CsCi) / (leaf surface deficit)

    • => (canopy scale): Transpiration of water ~ GPP ~ NPP

  • Carbon and energy:

    • Quantum flux of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) regulates photosynthesis (provided water and nutrients are abundant)

  • Water and energy:

    • Evaporation is controlled by (energy, water) supply in (moist, dry) conditions

    • Priestley and Taylor (1972): evaporation = 1.26 [available energy][Conditions: moist surface, quasi-equilibrium boundary layer]

  • Carbon and nutrients:

    • P:N:C ratios in biomass (and soil organic matter pools) are tightly constrained

    • 500 PgC of increased biomass requires ~ (5 to 15) PgN

    • Estimated available N (2000 to 2100) ~ (1 to 6) PgN (Hungate et al 2003)


The carbon water linkage
The carbon-water linkage nutrients

  • Terrestrial water balance (without snow):

  • Residence time of water in soil column ~ (10 to 100) days, so over averaging times much longer than this, dW/dt is small compared with fluxes

  • In an "unimpaired" catchment with constant water store: [streamflow] = [runoff] + [drainage]

  • Chain of constraints:

    • Streamflow (constrains (total) evaporation

    • Total evaporation (= transpiration + interception loss + soil evaporation) constrains transpiration

    • Transpiration constrains GPP and NPP

    • GPP, NPP control the rest of the terrestrial carbon cycle


Streamflow observation model
Streamflow: observation model nutrients

  • Basic principle

    • In an unimpaired catchment,

      • d[water store]/dt = [runoff] + [drainage]  [streamflow]

    • If d[water store]/dt can be neglected (small store or long averaging time):

      • [streamflow] = [runoff] + [drainage]

    • [water store] includes groundwater within catchment, rivers, ponds ...

  • Requirements for unimpaired catchment

    • All runoff and drainage finds its way to the river (no farm dams)

    • No other water fluxes from the river (eg irrigation, urban water use)

    • No major dams (otherwise d[store]/dt dominates streamflow)

    • Groundwater does not leak horizontally through catchment boundaries

  • Snow

    • needs a separate balance


Streamflow and other data issues
Streamflow (and other) data issues nutrients

  • Requirements on catchments

    • Unimpaired, gauged at outlet

    • Catchment boundary must be known

  • Requirements on measurement record

    • Well maintained gauge

    • The water agency must be prepared to give you the data

  • Requirements on other data

    • Need spatial distribution of met forcing (precip, radiation, temperature, humidity)

    • Need spatial distribution of soil properties (depth, water holding capacity ...)

    • Catchments are hilly:

      • Downside: everything varies

      • Upside: exploit covariation of met and soil properties with elevation (eg: d(Precipitation)/d(elevation) ~ 1 to 2 mm/y per metre

      • ANUSplin package (Mike Hutchinson, ANU)


Modelling at multiple scales
Modelling at multiple scales nutrients

Raupach, Barrett, Briggs, Kirby (2006)

  • We often have to predict large-scale behaviour from given small-scale laws:

    Small-scale dynamics Large-scale dynamics

  • Four generic ways of approaching this problem:

    1. Full solution: Forget about F, integrate dx/dt = f(x,u) directly

    2. Bulk model: Forget about f, find F directly from data or theory

    3. Upscaling: Find a probabilistic relationship between small scales (f) and large scales (F), for example by:

    4. Stochastic-dynamic modelling: Solve a stochastic differential equation for PDF of x (small scale), and thence find large-scale F:


Steady state water balance bulk approach
Steady-state water balance: nutrientsbulk approach

Fu (1981)Zhang et al (2004)

  • Steady state water balance:

  • Dependent variables: E = total evaporation, R = runoff

  • Independent variables: P = precipitation, EP = potential evaporation

  • Similarity assumptions (Fu 1981, Zhang et al 2004)

  • Solution finds E and R (with parameter a)(Fu 1981, Zhang et al 2004)


Steady water balance bulk approach
Steady water balance: nutrientsbulk approach

dry wet

wet dry

  • Normalise with potential evap EP:plot E/EP against P/EP

  • Normalise with precipitation P:plot E/EP against EP/P

E/EP

a=2,3,4,5

P/EP

a=2,3,4,5

Fu (1981)Zhang et al (2004)

EP/P


Stochastic dynamic modelling
Stochastic-dynamic modelling nutrients

  • Forcing (u) on small-scale process (x(t)) is often random, and dynamics (dx/dt = f(x,u)) often has strong nonlinearities such as thresholds

  • Examples: soil moisture, dust uplift, fire, many other BGC processes

  • If we can find rx(x), the PDF of x, we can find any average (large-scale) property


Stochastic dynamic modelling1
Stochastic-dynamic modelling nutrients

  • Forcing (u) on small-scale process (x(t)) is often random, and dynamics (dx/dt = f(x,u)) often has strong nonlinearities such as thresholds

  • Examples: soil moisture, dust uplift, fire, many other BGC processes

  • If we can find rx(x), the PDF of x, we can find any average (large-scale) property


Steady state water balance stochastic dynamic approach
Steady-state water balance: nutrientsstochastic-dynamic approach

rw(w)

<w>

increasing precipitation event frequency

increasing precipitation event frequency

dry wet

w = relative soil water

P/EP

Rodriguez-Iturbe et al (1999)Porporato et al (2004)

  • Dynamic water balance for a single water store w(t):

  • Then:

    • Let precipitation p(t) be a random forcing variable with known statistical properties (Poisson process in time, exponential distribution for p in a storm)

    • Find and solve the stochastic Liouville equation for rw(w), the PDF of w

    • Thence find time-averages: <w>, E = <e(w)>, R = <r(w)>


Water and carbon balances dynamic model
Water and carbon balances: dynamic model nutrients

  • Dynamic model is of general form dx/dt = f(x, u, p)

  • All fluxes (fi) are functions fi(state vector, met forcing, params)

  • Governing equations for state vector x = (W, Ci):

  • Soil water W:

  • Carbon pools Ci:

  • Simple (and conventional) phenomenological equations specify all f(x, u, p)

  • Carbon allocation (ai) specified by an analytic solution to optimisation of NPP


Test area murrumbidgee basin
Test area: Murrumbidgee basin nutrients

Murrumbidgee basin


Murrumbidgee relative soil moisture
Murrumbidgee: relative soil moisture nutrients

  • Jan 1981 to Dec 2005


J nutrients

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

81

82

83

84

Murrumbidgee Relative Soil Moisture (0 to 1)

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05


J nutrients

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

81

82

83

84

Murrumbidgee

Total Evaporation

(mm d-1)

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05



Predicted and observed discharge 11 unimpaired catchments in murrumbidgee basin
Predicted and observed discharge nutrients11 unimpaired catchments in Murrumbidgee basin

  • 25-year mean: Jan 1981 to December 2005Prior model parameters set roughly for Adelong, no spatial variation

Goobarragandra:410057

Adelong:410061


Predicted and observed discharge 11 unimpaired catchments in murrumbidgee basin1
Predicted and observed discharge nutrients11 unimpaired catchments in Murrumbidgee basin

  • 25-year time series: Jan 1981 to December 2005


Model data fusion
Model-data fusion nutrients

Prior information

Observations

Measurements

Prior information about target variables

Cost function

Model prediction of observations

Target variables

Covariance matrix of prior information error

Covariance matrix of observation error

  • Basic components

    • Model: containing adjustable "target variables" (y)

    • Data: observations (z) and/or prior constraints on the model

    • Cost function: to quantify the model-data mismatch z – h(y)

    • Search strategy: to minimise cost function and find "best" target variables

  • Quadratic cost function:


Kalman filter
Kalman Filter nutrients

  • Estimates the time-evolving hidden state of a system governed by known but noisy dynamical laws, using data with a known but noisy relationship with the state.

  • Dynamic model:

    • Evolves hidden system state (x) from one step to the next

    • Dynamics depend also on forcing (u) and parameters (p)

  • Observation model:

    • Relates observations (z) to state (x)

  • Target variables (y): might be any of state (x), parameters (p) or forcings (u)

  • Kalman filter steps through time, using prediction followed by analysis

    • Prediction: obtain prior estimates at step n from posterior estimates at step n-1

    • Analysis: Correct prior estimates, using model-data mismatch z – h(y)


Parameter estimation with the kalman filter
Parameter estimation with the Kalman Filter nutrients

  • Dynamic model includes parameters p = pk (k=1,…K) which may be poorly known:

  • Include parameters in the state vector, to produce an "augmented state vector"

  • The dynamic model for the augmented state vector is


Parameter estimation from runoff data
Parameter estimation from runoff data nutrients

  • Compare 2 estimation methods

    • EnKF with augmented state vector (sequential: estimates of p and Cov(p) are functions of time)

    • Levenberg-Marquardt (PEST)(non-sequntial: yields just one estimate of p and Cov(p))

  • Model runoff predictions with parameter estimates from EnKF


Final thoughts
Final thoughts nutrients

  • Applications of "Multiple constraints"

    • Data sense: atmospheric CO2, remote sensing, flux towers, C inventories ...

    • Process sense: measuring one cycle (eg water) to learn about another (eg C)

  • Requirement for multiple constraints (in process sense)

    • "Confluence of cycles"

      • Fluxes: cycles share a process pathway controlled by similar parameters

      • Pools: cycles have constrained ratios among pools (eg C:N:P)

  • Streamflow as a constraint on water cycle, thence carbon cycle

    • Strength: Independent constraint on water-carbon (and energy-water) cycles (strongest in temperate environments with P/EP ~ 1)

    • Limitation 1: obs model = full hydrological model (sometimes can be simplified)

    • Limitation 2: streamflow data (availability, quality, access)

  • Model-data fusion

    • Several methods work (focus on EnKF in parameter estimation mode)

    • OptIC (Optimisation InterComparison) project: see poster by Trudinger et al.


Hilary Talbot nutrients


ad