Development and Evaluation of a Coupled Photosynthesis-Based Gas Exchange Evapotranspiration Model (GEM) for Mesoscale Weather Forecasting Applications

Current land surface schemes used for mesoscale weather forecast models use the Jarvis-type stomatal resistance formulations for representing the vegetation transpiration processes. The Jarvis scheme, however, despite its robustness, needs significant tuning of the hypothetical minimum-stomatal resistance term to simulate surface energy balances. In this study, the authors show that the Jarvis-type stomatal resistance/transpiration model can be efficiently replaced in a coupled land‐atmosphere model with a photosynthesis-based scheme and still achieve dynamically consistent results. To demonstrate this transformative potential, the authors developed and coupled a photosynthesis, gas exchange‐based surface evapotranspiration model (GEM) as a land surface scheme for mesoscale weather forecasting model applications. The GEM was dynamically coupled with a prognostic soil moisture‐soil temperature model and an atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) model. This coupled system was then validated over different natural surfaces including temperate C4 vegetation (prairie grass and corn field) and C3 vegetation (soybean, fallow, and hardwood forest) under contrasting surface conditions (such as different soil moisture and leaf area index). Results indicated that the coupled model was able to realistically simulate the surface fluxes and the boundary layer characteristics over different landscapes. The surface energy fluxes, particularly for latent heat, are typically within 10%‐20% of the observations without any tuning of the biophysical‐vegetation characteristics, and the response to the changes in the surface characteristics is consistent with observations and theory. This result shows that photosynthesis-based transpiration/stomatal resistance models such as GEM, despite various complexities, can be applied for mesoscale weather forecasting applications. Future efforts for understanding the different scaling parameterizations and for correcting errors for low soil moisture and/or wilting vegetation conditions are necessary to improve model performance. Results from this study suggest that the GEM approach using the photosynthesis-based soil vegetation atmosphere transfer (SVAT) scheme is thus superior to the Jarvis-based approaches. Currently GEM is being implemented within the Noah land surface model for the community Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Advanced Research Version Modeling System (ARW) and the NCAR high-resolution land data assimilation system (HRLDAS), and validation is under way.

[1]  U. C. Mohanty,et al.  The role of land surface processes on the mesoscale simulation of the July 26, 2005 heavy rain event over Mumbai, India. , 2009 .

[2]  R. Pielke,et al.  The Role of Landscape Processes within the Climate System , 2009 .

[3]  Fei Chen,et al.  Evaluation of the Noah Land Surface Model Using Data from a Fair-Weather IHOP_2002 Day with Heterogeneous Surface Fluxes , 2008 .

[4]  Peter D. Blanken,et al.  Estimation of the Minimum Canopy Resistance for Croplands and Grasslands Using Data from the 2002 International H2O Project , 2008 .

[5]  Mark Heuer,et al.  Influences of biomass heat and biochemical energy storages on the land surface fluxes and radiative temperature , 2007 .

[6]  M. Ek,et al.  Impact of canopy resistance formulation on the long-term evolution of soil moisture and evaporation [presentation] , 2007 .

[7]  P. Blanken,et al.  NCAR/CU Surface, Soil, and Vegetation Observations during the International H2O Project 2002 Field Campaign , 2007 .

[8]  Sharon Zhong,et al.  Urban and land surface effects on the 30 July 2003 mesoscale convective system event observed in the southern Great Plains , 2006 .

[9]  Fei Chen,et al.  Effect of Land–Atmosphere Interactions on the IHOP 24–25 May 2002 Convection Case , 2006 .

[10]  G. Meehl,et al.  The Importance of Land-Cover Change in Simulating Future Climates , 2005, Science.

[11]  J. Berry,et al.  A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species , 1980, Planta.

[12]  J. D. Tarpley,et al.  Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model , 2003 .

[13]  R. Dickinson,et al.  The Common Land Model , 2003 .

[14]  R. Lacaze,et al.  A Global Database of Land Surface Parameters at 1-km Resolution in Meteorological and Climate Models , 2003 .

[15]  A. Pitman.  The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models , 2003 .

[16]  W. Oechel,et al.  Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites , 2002 .

[17]  R. Betts,et al.  The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases , 2002, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[18]  N. Seaman,et al.  Assimilating Surface Data to Improve the Accuracy of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Simulations , 2001 .

[19]  W. Oechel,et al.  FLUXNET: A New Tool to Study the Temporal and Spatial Variability of Ecosystem-Scale Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, and Energy Flux Densities , 2001 .

[20]  Sethu Raman,et al.  Numerical modeling of gas deposition and bi- directional surface-atmosphere exchanges in mesoscale air pollution systems , 2001 .

[21]  J. F. Clarke,et al.  Ozone and sulfur dioxide dry deposition to forests: Observations and model evaluation , 2000 .

[22]  K. Wilson,et al.  Quantifying stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to carbon assimilation resulting from leaf aging and drought in mature deciduous tree species. , 2000, Tree physiology.

[23]  Dennis D. Baldocchi,et al.  Spatial and seasonal variability of photosynthetic parameters and their relationship to leaf nitrogen in a deciduous forest. , 2000, Tree physiology.

[24]  Martha C. Anderson,et al.  An analytical model for estimating canopy transpiration and carbon assimilation fluxes based on canopy light-use efficiency , 2000 .

[25]  E. Cooter,et al.  Sensitivity of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration multilayer model to instrument error and parameterization uncertainty , 2000 .

[26]  J. Dudhia,et al.  Coupling an Advanced Land Surface–Hydrology Model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part I: Model Implementation and Sensitivity , 2001 .

[27]  J. Noilhan,et al.  MUREX: a land-surface field experiment to study the annual cycle of the energy and water budgets , 1999 .

[28]  K. Alapaty,et al.  Uncertainty in the Specification of Surface Characteristics, Part ii: Hierarchy of Interaction-Explicit Statistical Analysis , 1999 .

[29]  R. Betts,et al.  The impact of new land surface physics on the GCM simulation of climate and climate sensitivity , 1999 .

[30]  K. Alapaty,et al.  Comparison of four different stomatal resistance schemes using FIFE data. Part II: Analysis of terrestrial biospheric-atmospheric interactions , 1998 .

[31]  J. F. Clarke,et al.  A multilayer model for inferring dry deposition using standard meteorological measurements , 1998 .

[32]  Jean-Pierre Wigneron,et al.  An interactive vegetation SVAT model tested against data from six contrasting sites , 1998 .

[33]  P. Sellers,et al.  Modeling of Energy, Water, and CO2 Flux in a Temperate Grassland Ecosystem with SiB2: May–October 1987 , 1998 .

[34]  U. Maier-Maercker.  Dynamics of change in stomatal response and water status of Picea abies during a persistent drought period: a contribution to the traditional view of plant water relations. , 1998, Tree physiology.

[35]  H. Jones.  Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration , 1998 .

[36]  G. Collatz,et al.  Parameterization and testing of a coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model for boreal trees. , 1998, Tree physiology.

[37]  S. S. Joshi,et al.  Direct estimation of stomatal resistance for meteorological applications , 1997 .

[38]  Sethu Raman,et al.  Comparison of Four Different Stomatal Resistance Schemes Using FIFE Observations , 1997 .

[39]  Daewon W. Byun,et al.  Simulation of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Processes Using Local- and Nonlocal-Closure Schemes , 1997 .

[40]  Kiran Alapaty,et al.  UNCERTAINTY IN THE SPECIFICATION OF SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS: A STUDY OF PREDICTION ERRORS IN THE BOUNDARY LAYER , 1997 .

[41]  R. Shaw,et al.  Development of a Coupled Leaf and Canopy Model for the Simulation of Plant-Atmosphere Interaction , 1996 .

[42]  A. Mäkelä,et al.  Optimal Control of Gas Exchange during Drought: Theoretical Analysis , 1996 .

[43]  D. Randall,et al.  A Revised Land Surface Parameterization (SiB2) for Atmospheric GCMS. Part I: Model Formulation , 1996 .

[44]  Y. Xue,et al.  Modeling of land surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations , 1996 .

[45]  William J. Massman,et al.  Coupling biochemical and biophysical processes at the leaf level: an equilibrium photosynthesis model for leaves of C3 plants , 1995 .

[46]  M. Bosilovich,et al.  Formulation and verification of a land surface parameterization for atmospheric models , 1995 .

[47]  Aijun Xiu,et al.  Development and Testing of a Surface Flux and Planetary Boundary Layer Model for Application in Mesoscale Models , 1995 .

[48]  C. Jacobs,et al.  Direct impact of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on regional transpiration , 1994 .

[49]  E. Schulze,et al.  Relationships among Maximum Stomatal Conductance, Ecosystem Surface Conductance, Carbon Assimilation Rate, and Plant Nitrogen Nutrition: A Global Ecology Scaling Exercise , 1994 .

[50]  J. Norman,et al.  Leaf gas exchange of Andropogon gerardii Vitman, Panicum virgatum L., and Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash in a tallgrass prairie , 1992 .

[51]  D. Baldocchi.  A lagrangian random-walk model for simulating water vapor, CO2 and sensible heat flux densities and scalar profiles over and within a soybean canopy , 1992 .

[52]  P. Sellers,et al.  SEISMIC EVIDENCE FOR A LOW-VELOCITY LUNAR CORE , 1992 .

[53]  G. Collatz,et al.  Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants , 1992 .

[54]  S. Verma,et al.  Modeling canopy photosynthesis: scaling up from a leaf to canopy in a temperate grassland ecosystem , 1991 .

[55]  G. Collatz,et al.  Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer , 1991 .

[56]  Ray Leuning,et al.  Modelling Stomatal Behaviour and and Photosynthesis of Eucalyptus grandis , 1990 .

[57]  S. Planton,et al.  A Simple Parameterization of Land Surface Processes for Meteorological Models , 1989 .

[58]  H.D.J. van Heemst,et al.  Plant data values required for simple crop growth simulation models : review and bibliography , 1988 .

[59]  U. KyawThaPaw.  Mathematical analysis of the operative temperature and energy budget , 1987 .

[60]  I. E. Woodrow,et al.  A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions , 1987 .

[61]  Piers J. Sellers,et al.  The first International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project (ISLSCP) Field Experiment - FIFE , 1992 .

[62]  J. Goudriaan,et al.  Photosynthesis, CO2 and Plant Production , 1985 .

[63]  J. Mccaughey.  Energy balance storage terms in a mature mixed forest at Petawawa, Ontario — A case study , 1985 .

[64]  I. R. Cowan.  Regulation of Water Use in Relation to Carbon Gain in Higher Plants , 1982 .

[65]  G. Hornberger,et al.  Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties , 1978 .

[66]  J. Deardorff.  Efficient prediction of ground surface temperature and moisture, with inclusion of a layer of vegetation , 1978 .

[67]  P. Jarvis.  The Interpretation of the Variations in Leaf Water Potential and Stomatal Conductance Found in Canopies in the Field , 1976 .

[68]  F. S. Nakayama,et al.  The Dependence of Bare Soil Albedo on Soil Water Content. , 1975 .