A Method to Efficiently Apply a Biogeochemical Model to a Landscape

Biogeochemical models offer an important means of understanding carbon dynamics, but the computational complexity of many models means that modeling all grid cells on a large landscape is computationally burdensome. Because most biogeochemical models ignore adjacency effects between cells, however, a more efficient approach is possible. Recognizing that spatial variation in model outputs is solely a function of spatial variation in input driver variables such as climate, we developed a method to sample the model outputs in input variable space rather than geographic space, and to then use simple interpolation in input variable space to estimate values for the remainder of the landscape. We tested the method in a 100 km×260 km area of western Oregon, U.S.A. , comparing interpolated maps of net primary production (NPP) and net ecosystem production (NEP) with maps from an exhaustive, wall-to-wall run of the model. The interpolation method can match spatial patterns of model behavior well (correlations>0.8) using samples of only 5 t o 15% of the landscape. Compression of temporal variation in input drivers is a key step in the process, with choice of input variables for compression largely determining the upper bounds on the degree of match between interpolated and original maps. The method is applicable to any model that does not consider adjacency effects, and could free up computational expense for a variety of other computational burdens, including spatial sensitivity analyses, alternative scenario testing, or finer grain-size mapping.

[1]  Nicholas C. Coops,et al.  Estimating forest productivity in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon using a satellite driven process model, 3-PGS , 2001 .

[2]  S. VAN TUY,et al.  Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks and fluxes across Western Oregon USA , 2004 .

[3]  E. Rastetter,et al.  PRIMARY PRODUCTION OF AN ARCTIC WATERSHED: AN UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[4]  Yoshiki Yamagata,et al.  The scheme for globalization of a process-based model explaining gradations in terrestrial NPP and its application , 2002 .

[5]  J. Aber,et al.  A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems , 1992, Oecologia.

[6]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain , 1997 .

[7]  Debra P. C. Peters,et al.  Strategies for ecological extrapolation , 2004 .

[8]  E. Rastetter,et al.  PREDICTING GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY IN TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS , 1997 .

[9]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[10]  Scott V. Ollinger,et al.  Estimating regional forest productivity and water yield using an ecosystem model linked to a GIS , 1998, Landscape Ecology.

[11]  R. Waring,et al.  Evergreen Coniferous Forests of the Pacific Northwest , 1979, Science.

[12]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Simultaneous estimation of daily solar radiation and humidity from observed temperature and precipitation: an application over complex terrain in Austria. , 2000 .

[13]  Timothy G. F. Kittel,et al.  Regional Analysis of the Central Great Plains , 1991 .

[14]  Jeffrey S. Kern,et al.  Spatial patterns of soil organic carbon pool size in the northwestern United States , 1998 .

[15]  S. Garman,et al.  Scaling fine-scale processes to large-scale patterns using models derived from models: meta-models. , 1999 .

[16]  W. Parton,et al.  Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands , 1987 .

[17]  Armin R. Mikler,et al.  Modeling Forest Landscapes: Parameter Estimation from Gap Models over Heterogeneous Terrain , 2001, Simul..

[18]  S. Garman Design and evaluation of a forest landscape change model for western Oregon , 2004 .

[19]  Steven E. Franklin,et al.  Modeling Forest Net Primary Productivity with Reduced Uncertainty by Remote Sensing of Cover Type and Leaf Area Index , 2001 .

[20]  M. Hill,et al.  Data analysis in community and landscape ecology , 1987 .

[21]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests , 2002 .

[22]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Regional ecosystem simulation: Combining surface- and satellite-based observations to study linkages between terrestrial energy and mass budgets , 1998 .

[23]  S. Running,et al.  8 – Generalization of a Forest Ecosystem Process Model for Other Biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an Application for Global-Scale Models , 1993 .

[24]  Carolyn T. Hunsaker,et al.  Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications , 2002 .

[25]  Vemap Participants Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project: Comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling , 1995 .

[26]  Linda Weiser Friedman,et al.  The Simulation Metamodel , 1995 .

[27]  Jennifer L. Dungan,et al.  Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: basis for distributed simulation , 1991 .

[28]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Parameterization and Sensitivity Analysis of the BIOME–BGC Terrestrial Ecosystem Model: Net Primary Production Controls , 2000 .

[29]  Derek J. Pike,et al.  Empirical Model‐building and Response Surfaces. , 1988 .

[30]  B. E. L Aw,et al.  Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks and fluxes across Western Oregon USA , 2004 .