Cargando…

Comparison between remote sensing and a dynamic vegetation model for estimating terrestrial primary production of Africa

BACKGROUND: Africa is an important part of the global carbon cycle. It is also a continent facing potential problems due to increasing resource demand in combination with climate change-induced changes in resource supply. Quantifying the pools and fluxes constituting the terrestrial African carbon c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Ardö, Jonas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25960765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0018-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Africa is an important part of the global carbon cycle. It is also a continent facing potential problems due to increasing resource demand in combination with climate change-induced changes in resource supply. Quantifying the pools and fluxes constituting the terrestrial African carbon cycle is a challenge, because of uncertainties in meteorological driver data, lack of validation data, and potentially uncertain representation of important processes in major ecosystems. In this paper, terrestrial primary production estimates derived from remote sensing and a dynamic vegetation model are compared and quantified for major African land cover types. RESULTS: Continental gross primary production estimates derived from remote sensing were higher than corresponding estimates derived from a dynamic vegetation model. However, estimates of continental net primary production from remote sensing were lower than corresponding estimates from the dynamic vegetation model. Variation was found among land cover classes, and the largest differences in gross primary production were found in the evergreen broadleaf forest. Average carbon use efficiency (NPP/GPP) was 0.58 for the vegetation model and 0.46 for the remote sensing method. Validation versus in situ data of aboveground net primary production revealed significant positive relationships for both methods. A combination of the remote sensing method with the dynamic vegetation model did not strongly affect this relationship. CONCLUSION: Observed significant differences in estimated vegetation productivity may have several causes, including model design and temperature sensitivity. Differences in carbon use efficiency reflect underlying model assumptions. Integrating the realistic process representation of dynamic vegetation models with the high resolution observational strength of remote sensing may support realistic estimation of components of the carbon cycle and enhance resource monitoring, providing suitable validation data is available.